WEBVTT

00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:06.969
Good morning, this meeting of the Public Utility Commission

00:00:06.969 --> 00:00:08.859
Texas will come to order to consider matters that have

00:00:08.859 --> 00:00:11.050
been duly posted with the Secretary of State of Texas

00:00:11.050 --> 00:00:14.410
for August 19, 2021. For the record, my name is Peter

00:00:14.410 --> 00:00:17.489
Lake with me today is Will MCAdams, Lori Cobos,

00:00:17.489 --> 00:00:19.629
and for the first time in an open meeting, Jimmy Glotfelty.

00:00:19.640 --> 00:00:23.190
Welcome, Jimmy. Glad to have you. Thank you for the

00:00:23.199 --> 00:00:29.850
pause Mr. Smeltzer.

00:00:29.850 --> 00:00:34.219
Yeah, Glotfelty Booster Club President, David Smelter

00:00:35.299 --> 00:00:39.549
Mr. Journay, could you please walk us through the consent

00:00:39.560 --> 00:00:43.740
items on today's agenda.
Good morning, Commissioners.

00:00:43.750 --> 00:00:48.490
By individual ballot, the following items were placed on the Consent Agenda.
6, 8, 14, 15,

00:00:48.500 --> 00:00:55.159
16, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 36.
Is there a motion

00:00:55.159 --> 00:00:57.570
to approve the consent items just described by Mr Journay?

00:00:57.570 --> 00:01:03.469
So moved.
Seconded
All in favor say aye.
Alright, Mr Chairman

00:01:04.140 --> 00:01:08.069
Through a misunderstanding, I had the told Y'all that

00:01:08.079 --> 00:01:10.390
item 35 was not going to be taken up today, but we

00:01:10.400 --> 00:01:15.840
do need to take that.

00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:18.939
All right.

00:01:18.939 --> 00:01:22.510
Okay. Thank you sir. The motion to approve the consent

00:01:22.510 --> 00:01:26.920
agenda passes. At this point, we'll open for public comment.

00:01:26.930 --> 00:01:29.469
Oral comments related to a specific agenda item will

00:01:29.469 --> 00:01:34.000
be heard when that item is taken up. This public

00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:36.370
comment period is for general comments, speakers will

00:01:36.370 --> 00:01:39.750
be limited to three minutes each. Mr Journay, do we

00:01:39.750 --> 00:01:42.599
have any one from the public signed up to speak?
No

00:01:42.599 --> 00:01:46.219
one signed up on our sign in sheet, sir.
Thank you sir

00:01:46.640 --> 00:01:52.379
This point, Public comment is closed. We will

00:01:52.379 --> 00:01:56.450
be taking up item 35 but not item seven today. 
That's

00:01:56.450 --> 00:02:01.359
correct. 
Alright, brings us to item number one.

00:02:01.359 --> 00:02:04.739
Could you lay this out for us, Mr. Journay?

00:02:04.739 --> 00:02:07.709
Item 1 is Docket 51244. It's the application

00:02:07.709 --> 00:02:10.659
of Monarch by Windsor for an alternative method of

00:02:10.659 --> 00:02:15.099
allocating billing for HVAC consumption. Corrected

00:02:15.099 --> 00:02:19.189
proposed order was filed on July 2. I have a memo

00:02:19.199 --> 00:02:23.639
with proposed changes to the order.

00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:28.469
Thank you sir. In this case it seems to be pretty

00:02:28.469 --> 00:02:31.860
straightforward, third party acting directly for

00:02:32.240 --> 00:02:37.139
the owner. Any thoughts, comments?

00:02:37.139 --> 00:02:40.310
So yeah, I think just on the ordering paragraph number

00:02:40.319 --> 00:02:45.460
two. I think it's important to reflect as much notice

00:02:45.469 --> 00:02:49.770
on the new cost allocation as possible and therefore

00:02:49.780 --> 00:02:53.110
a 90 day notice requirement, I think that should be

00:02:53.110 --> 00:02:57.180
reflected. Notice requirement would not renew

00:02:57.189 --> 00:03:01.590
lease agreements?
No, sir.
That was something that came

00:03:01.590 --> 00:03:04.229
up in discussion. I don't know if it's new business

00:03:04.229 --> 00:03:06.949
go through that, but just 90 days notice before that

00:03:06.949 --> 00:03:10.319
can be implemented?
Yes.
For existing customers and but

00:03:10.330 --> 00:03:13.110
for new customers it should be reflected.
In the lease agreement.

00:03:13.120 --> 00:03:16.139
Yes, in the new lease agreement.
That's right. 
They

00:03:16.139 --> 00:03:20.280
should read.
All right, fairly straightforward. Is there

00:03:20.280 --> 00:03:23.449
a motion to adopt the corrected proposed order with

00:03:23.449 --> 00:03:25.949
the proposed change to ordering paragraph number two

00:03:26.639 --> 00:03:29.370
and the changes recommended in commission counsel's memo?

00:03:31.129 --> 00:03:35.509
All in favor say aye. Alright, motion passes. Item

00:03:35.509 --> 00:03:38.939
number two please.

00:03:38.939 --> 00:03:45.099
Item 2 is Docket 51301, it's the application of TMNP to

00:03:45.099 --> 00:03:49.169
amend their CCN for a 138 transmission line in Galveston

00:03:49.169 --> 00:03:55.229
county. Proposed order was filed June 29. That would

00:03:55.229 --> 00:03:59.340
amend TMNP CCN for that line based on the agreement

00:03:59.340 --> 00:04:04.759
of the party. Corrections were proposed in the

00:04:04.759 --> 00:04:08.250
ALJ filed correction memo on July 20. Commission considered

00:04:08.250 --> 00:04:11.259
this at 29th open meeting and requested information.

00:04:11.939 --> 00:04:15.520
Some of that has been submitted. We filed a memo

00:04:15.530 --> 00:04:19.660
requesting parties attend this meeting for additional

00:04:19.660 --> 00:04:23.790
information.
I think last time we discussed this, everything

00:04:23.790 --> 00:04:26.279
seemed to be in order except that two habitable structures.

00:04:26.279 --> 00:04:29.610
Will, I know you had some concerns about that?
Yes sir

00:04:29.740 --> 00:04:32.410
And I'd still like to ask party some questions about

00:04:32.410 --> 00:04:39.160
it. Bottom line is the marathon letter clarifying

00:04:39.220 --> 00:04:44.060
that they will not be condemned and that it's following

00:04:44.060 --> 00:04:48.259
an existing distribution easement. Still a transmission

00:04:48.259 --> 00:04:50.420
line and distribution easement is coming really close to

00:04:50.420 --> 00:04:56.589
a house and yeah. Uh huh. I'm a layman. I'm not an

00:04:56.589 --> 00:05:00.560
engineer. But is that safe? And you know, National Electric

00:05:00.569 --> 00:05:05.259
Code, clearly which is in our rules as the basis for the safety

00:05:05.259 --> 00:05:09.800
measures. So are we in compliance there? So yeah, I'd

00:05:09.800 --> 00:05:15.170
like to ask parties some questions.
Alright. If parties would approach please.

00:05:15.170 --> 00:05:28.139


00:05:28.139 --> 00:05:35.009
Good morning. Stephanie Sparks on behalf of TMNP

00:05:35.079 --> 00:05:38.879
I think that I have with me Chris Gary from

00:05:38.879 --> 00:05:42.740
TMNP and John Wooten from HDR And I think that we can answer

00:05:42.740 --> 00:05:45.040
some of those questions regarding the proximity of

00:05:45.040 --> 00:05:48.230
the line to the habitable structures.
Yeah, you heard

00:05:48.230 --> 00:05:50.920
my comments, logic kind of shows which direction I'm

00:05:50.930 --> 00:05:54.399
headed. Can you sort of speak to proximity of the line

00:05:54.410 --> 00:05:58.350
to the structures? Why does it not necessitate condemnation

00:05:58.740 --> 00:06:04.290
and the safety aspects of that?
Yeah. So the line does comply

00:06:04.290 --> 00:06:06.310
with the National Electric safety code or for the line

00:06:06.310 --> 00:06:08.180
that will be built, will comply with the National Electric

00:06:08.180 --> 00:06:10.579
Safety code in terms of horizontal clearances to habitable

00:06:10.579 --> 00:06:14.870
structures. And then in addition, you know, the

00:06:14.879 --> 00:06:17.860
transmission line itself will be taller than the existing

00:06:17.860 --> 00:06:20.199
distribution line and it will essentially follow the

00:06:20.199 --> 00:06:22.879
same center line of that wire over the top of

00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:25.939
it.
What's the linear feet from that wire to the structure

00:06:25.939 --> 00:06:28.110
itself?
The linear feet from the wire to the structure

00:06:28.110 --> 00:06:37.040
itself appears to be horizontally, roughly 15 ft.

00:06:37.040 --> 00:06:41.860
It's close.
Talking about, when you say Larry, like vertical axis?

00:06:41.860 --> 00:06:45.470
Horizontal axis or the I find this through that triangle?

00:06:45.470 --> 00:06:48.870
Right, So--
Okay, I'm talking about the horizontal distance

00:06:48.879 --> 00:06:53.490
So that house itself roughly would be 15 or so feet

00:06:53.490 --> 00:06:57.129
tall and our line will be at the bottom of it sag

00:06:57.139 --> 00:07:00.860
45 ft. Now, this location is much closer to a structure

00:07:01.240 --> 00:07:03.720
So I think it will be, it will be somewhat higher than

00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:06.910
that but 45 ft at a minimum at the middle of our

00:07:06.910 --> 00:07:10.410
sag. Whereas the existing distribution line Is something

00:07:10.410 --> 00:07:14.439
around the neighborhood of 30 ft off the ground.

00:07:14.439 --> 00:07:17.079
Your experience in this. I mean I kind of did this

00:07:17.079 --> 00:07:21.709
for a living...
15ft close but you know, I think in the

00:07:21.720 --> 00:07:25.689
space we followed the national electric safety code and you

00:07:25.689 --> 00:07:27.870
know if you're within the clearance then you're

00:07:27.870 --> 00:07:31.050
within the clearance. I guess my question is what about

00:07:31.540 --> 00:07:36.160
you may be horizontally 15 ft, does that take into

00:07:36.160 --> 00:07:39.120
consideration any wind or anything that might blow

00:07:39.120 --> 00:07:42.300
that line? I know it's an industrial area so there's not

00:07:42.300 --> 00:07:44.019
a huge amount of wind like you'd be dealing with in

00:07:44.019 --> 00:07:48.029
west Texas, but that would blow that 15-foot closer

00:07:48.029 --> 00:07:50.889
to the home.
Yes. So the minimum National Electric

00:07:50.889 --> 00:07:53.300
safety code, horizontal clearances in the neighborhood

00:07:53.300 --> 00:07:57.069
eight ft so that 15 ft would accommodate both the

00:07:57.079 --> 00:08:00.759
blow out of our wire itself as well as the required

00:08:00.759 --> 00:08:04.139
horizontal clearance.

00:08:04.139 --> 00:08:09.069
Okay. And on notice to the inhabitants, what have

00:08:09.069 --> 00:08:11.610
we done so far, what have they received? 
I can speak

00:08:11.610 --> 00:08:15.629
to that. So for our for the CCN docket we sent them

00:08:15.629 --> 00:08:18.959
notice via direct mail and then also published it in

00:08:18.959 --> 00:08:22.740
the newspaper that gets regular circulation there. For

00:08:22.740 --> 00:08:26.149
HDR for the public meeting before we even filed the

00:08:26.149 --> 00:08:32.509
docket they sent notices via mail and I think it was just mail.
That's

00:08:32.509 --> 00:08:36.059
correct.
Okay. And can you be confirm did they attend

00:08:36.059 --> 00:08:40.509
the public meeting? These two inhabitants. Not saying

00:08:40.509 --> 00:08:42.610
it's required or anything like that, just for more of

00:08:42.610 --> 00:08:45.279
a curiosity.
They did not sign into the public meeting

00:08:45.679 --> 00:08:49.860
We also did not receive any phone calls after the notice

00:08:49.860 --> 00:08:51.590
was provided.

00:08:51.590 --> 00:08:54.340
And I will say the public meetings held in person and

00:08:54.350 --> 00:08:56.740
online.

00:08:56.740 --> 00:09:01.039
So there's been absolutely no contact with the

00:09:01.049 --> 00:09:04.340
the individuals that live in the structures?
Correct

00:09:04.340 --> 00:09:06.659
We have not been in contact with people who live in that home.

00:09:08.210 --> 00:09:11.330
Other than sending them to the notices.
Two separate attempts and

00:09:12.139 --> 00:09:14.769
one public meeting. 
Right. 
And there is presumably

00:09:14.769 --> 00:09:18.470
notice filed for the public meeting locally. 
Yeah

00:09:18.480 --> 00:09:20.700
Do you all do notice for public meetings in the newspaper

00:09:20.700 --> 00:09:23.549
or just the direct mail? 
Believe we did direct mailers.

00:09:24.539 --> 00:09:26.970
But then for the CCN there was a newspaper notice.

00:09:27.639 --> 00:09:30.539


00:09:30.539 --> 00:09:33.539
Okay.

00:09:33.539 --> 00:09:37.419
Okay. And so you're complying with the code. You

00:09:37.419 --> 00:09:41.360
are in a hurricane area, prone area. And in terms of

00:09:41.669 --> 00:09:44.429
that line stretching out there, you're complying with

00:09:44.440 --> 00:09:49.649
national safety code standards for that area of weather

00:09:49.649 --> 00:09:56.039
and otherwise.

00:09:56.039 --> 00:09:59.509
Okay, that's close. Any other comments?
Yeah, I guess

00:09:59.509 --> 00:10:03.350
my comment is it just seems I know citing transmission

00:10:03.350 --> 00:10:06.539
lines is hard, especially over long distances. This

00:10:06.539 --> 00:10:09.590
isn't really that long of a distance. There are only

00:10:09.590 --> 00:10:12.990
two structures. It would seem like it would have been

00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:17.220
easy to go knock on the door and I know you're following

00:10:17.220 --> 00:10:21.240
the letter of the responsibility by the postings and

00:10:21.240 --> 00:10:25.049
such. But sometimes we need to go out of our way to

00:10:25.840 --> 00:10:28.860
address consumers directly that may impact their

00:10:28.860 --> 00:10:31.669
habitable structures or as we call them homes.

00:10:32.139 --> 00:10:35.940
So it seems to me that there should have been an actual

00:10:35.940 --> 00:10:41.169
effort. There aren't many, there are just two, so I think

00:10:41.179 --> 00:10:43.970
in my experience we would have done that, we would have

00:10:43.970 --> 00:10:47.840
gone and knocked on their door.

00:10:47.840 --> 00:10:53.539
Some counsel for future efforts perhaps.

00:10:53.539 --> 00:11:01.139
Okay. Thank you. Any other...?

00:11:01.139 --> 00:11:04.799
All right. So at this point we consider approving the

00:11:04.799 --> 00:11:08.340
proposed order.

00:11:08.340 --> 00:11:10.139
Is everybody good with the same rounds we discussed

00:11:10.139 --> 00:11:17.019
GC7 & CC2
Yes.
All right. Adequately

00:11:17.019 --> 00:11:20.940
addresses the other issues

00:11:20.940 --> 00:11:23.669
that have come up. In that case, I'll entertain a motion

00:11:23.669 --> 00:11:25.970
to adopt the corrected proposed order with the changes

00:11:25.970 --> 00:11:28.789
recommended in commission counsels memo and approve

00:11:28.799 --> 00:11:34.990
routes GC7 & CC2.
So moved.
Second.
All

00:11:34.990 --> 00:11:40.539
in favor say aye. Motion passes, thank you.

00:11:40.539 --> 00:11:43.919
Item #3, please, sir. 
Item #3 is Docket

00:11:43.929 --> 00:11:49.279
51776. It's a joint application of E-tech and Rayburn country

00:11:49.289 --> 00:11:54.450
to transfer a transmission line. There is a proposed

00:11:54.450 --> 00:11:57.350
order filed on June 15, and I have a memo with proposed

00:11:57.350 --> 00:12:02.340
corrections today.

00:12:02.340 --> 00:12:05.049
This seems pretty straight forward. Any thoughts or

00:12:05.049 --> 00:12:07.740
comments on this one.

00:12:07.740 --> 00:12:10.009
All right. Is there a motion to adopt the proposed

00:12:10.009 --> 00:12:13.860
order with changes from commission counsel?
So moved.
Seconded.

00:12:14.340 --> 00:12:18.830
All in favor say aye. Motion passes. Item #4

00:12:18.830 --> 00:12:23.190
please, sir.
Item four is docket 51912, application

00:12:23.190 --> 00:12:27.860
IAP Texas to amend a CCN for a 345 transmission line

00:12:28.440 --> 00:12:32.019
Proposed order was filed on July 30 with ALJ filed a

00:12:32.029 --> 00:12:36.730
correction memo on August 10. The order would implement

00:12:36.730 --> 00:12:40.940
an agreement of the parties and approve route ISR

00:12:40.950 --> 00:12:45.639
for this transmission.

00:12:45.639 --> 00:12:50.309
This is an interesting one. We've got an agreed

00:12:50.309 --> 00:12:53.240
upon route that's $20 million dollars more expensive

00:12:53.250 --> 00:12:59.340
than other routes recommended and considered. Oh,

00:12:59.340 --> 00:13:03.340
I know there's

00:13:03.340 --> 00:13:06.190
The fact that there's a settlement seems to be the

00:13:06.200 --> 00:13:09.610
on this seems to be about the only highlight. I

00:13:09.620 --> 00:13:11.559
know there's some considerations for the properties

00:13:11.559 --> 00:13:15.899
involved and wildlife considerations. For $20 million

00:13:15.899 --> 00:13:20.139
dollars for the ratepayers to bear is above and beyond

00:13:20.139 --> 00:13:23.960
what several other acceptable routes seems extraordinary

00:13:24.440 --> 00:13:26.740
Thoughts?

00:13:26.740 --> 00:13:30.379
I agree, Chairman Lake. You know, ERCOT deemed this project

00:13:30.379 --> 00:13:33.230
is critical for reliability and we are very focused

00:13:33.230 --> 00:13:37.909
on addressing transmission issues in the Corpus Rio

00:13:37.909 --> 00:13:42.070
Grande Valley area and but as you look at the settlement

00:13:42.070 --> 00:13:46.139
agreement, it is based on a route that is 20, about

00:13:46.139 --> 00:13:49.190
$20 million dollars more. And there are at least four

00:13:49.190 --> 00:13:54.340
other cheaper alternatives. And so, you know, I think

00:13:54.340 --> 00:13:56.649
there's got to be a balance here and I think the settlement

00:13:56.649 --> 00:14:00.629
agreement, it sounds like a lot of their main reasons

00:14:00.629 --> 00:14:02.779
There was a settlement agreement based on aesthetics

00:14:03.029 --> 00:14:06.870
of the routing and so that alone, I don't think it

00:14:06.879 --> 00:14:10.309
is sufficient to warrant, you know, the more expensive

00:14:10.309 --> 00:14:14.159
line. However, I would like to strike a balance between

00:14:14.840 --> 00:14:19.549
addressing this issue and finding a more least cost

00:14:20.139 --> 00:14:23.870
transmission routes. But I'd like to hear from AEP

00:14:23.879 --> 00:14:29.129
if we remand this case back to further evaluate the

00:14:29.129 --> 00:14:33.169
other four routes, what the impact will be on the

00:14:33.179 --> 00:14:37.590
end service date of the line.
That to me, that's a

00:14:37.590 --> 00:14:42.019
good point. I am extremely uncomfortable with cost

00:14:42.029 --> 00:14:46.759
on this proposed settled route and the arguments used

00:14:46.759 --> 00:14:49.950
to justify it, introduction of non native grasses,

00:14:51.139 --> 00:14:54.970
That kind of thing. Now, that does not warrant in my

00:14:54.970 --> 00:14:59.059
mind, cost overruns of this magnitude.
40% cost increase

00:14:59.070 --> 00:15:03.460
A bunch of a bunch of roads on the property. Well

00:15:03.460 --> 00:15:06.330
used roads, lots of facilities on the property, all

00:15:06.330 --> 00:15:09.539
sorts of vehicles coming and going.
No way. So I agree

00:15:09.539 --> 00:15:14.830
with Commissioner Cobos, but we need to look at the timeliness

00:15:14.830 --> 00:15:19.289
of energizing that line. So is there a representative

00:15:19.289 --> 00:15:25.740
here from AEP?

00:15:25.740 --> 00:15:29.960
Yes, Commissioner Everbread for AEP Texas. Obviously

00:15:29.960 --> 00:15:33.710
if it's, the line is not approved today, you know

00:15:33.710 --> 00:15:36.559
there would be a delay, and when we start construction

00:15:36.940 --> 00:15:39.350
but as we've told staff because this was a question

00:15:39.350 --> 00:15:44.139
staff had, it's acceptable.

00:15:44.139 --> 00:15:47.379
Okay, so it's acceptable, in that, I mean, what is it

00:15:47.379 --> 00:15:50.629
gonna do to the December end service date?
Well, I

00:15:50.629 --> 00:15:55.960
guess it really depends on how quickly the case resolves

00:15:56.940 --> 00:16:00.539
If we can reach another agreement in the next couple

00:16:00.539 --> 00:16:03.690
of months. That certainly helps. If, if we do need

00:16:03.690 --> 00:16:08.559
to do a fully contested case, you know, where we don't

00:16:08.559 --> 00:16:12.330
get approval by this October, there could be a month

00:16:12.340 --> 00:16:16.039
by month delay.

00:16:16.039 --> 00:16:18.990
Basically however long it takes for us to get through

00:16:18.990 --> 00:16:24.940
the process, fair enough. And this,

00:16:24.940 --> 00:16:30.820
this is an important reliability project in a part

00:16:30.820 --> 00:16:33.509
of the state that need as much help as it can get

00:16:33.519 --> 00:16:39.009
in terms of additional transmission. So what sounds

00:16:39.009 --> 00:16:42.659
like the most expedient way for this to get resolved

00:16:42.659 --> 00:16:47.500
is for, I don't hear a lot of enthusiasm for a $40%

00:16:47.500 --> 00:16:50.759
$20 million dollar increase, regardless of how desperately

00:16:50.759 --> 00:16:55.649
this is needed. So I think the fastest way to

00:16:55.649 --> 00:16:58.440
get this done would be for the parties to find a reasonable

00:16:58.440 --> 00:17:04.799
settlement and that doesn't cost the ratepayers an extraordinary

00:17:04.799 --> 00:17:09.039
amount of money for aesthetics and

00:17:09.039 --> 00:17:11.799
native crafts concern.
I think this is an important

00:17:11.809 --> 00:17:14.519
case, especially right now as we talk about reliability

00:17:14.519 --> 00:17:17.220
and we're signaling that we're interested in expediting

00:17:17.220 --> 00:17:19.420
as many of these lines as possible, especially in that

00:17:19.430 --> 00:17:22.500
part of the world. But if we're gonna be held over

00:17:22.500 --> 00:17:25.390
the barrel as a commission where the ratepayers are

00:17:25.390 --> 00:17:28.430
on the hook, you know, writing blank checks in these

00:17:28.430 --> 00:17:31.579
settlements is not the way to go.
It's not at any cost.

00:17:32.480 --> 00:17:34.309
There's got to be a balance between reliability and

00:17:34.309 --> 00:17:37.289
cost and we are very much focused in that area. But

00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:41.309
I think Commissioner McAdams has sort of alluded to

00:17:41.319 --> 00:17:44.690
We can't just put, you can't just move these projects

00:17:44.690 --> 00:17:47.630
through on settlements that are significantly higher

00:17:47.630 --> 00:17:50.430
costs and cheaper alternatives in case we got to get

00:17:50.430 --> 00:17:53.380
the utilities to come up with reasonable settlements

00:17:53.380 --> 00:17:56.599
and reasonable proposed routes that not only help us

00:17:56.599 --> 00:17:58.960
ensure reliability in those critical areas of the state

00:17:59.339 --> 00:18:02.490
but also take into consideration the cost of the ratepayers

00:18:02.490 --> 00:18:06.170
will be paying at the end of the day. So that's it

00:18:06.170 --> 00:18:11.240
I would recommend remanding it back to

00:18:11.240 --> 00:18:14.779
For further evidence, further review of the four routes.

00:18:15.539 --> 00:18:18.970
Agreed. 
Can I just say one thing? Obviously, the

00:18:18.980 --> 00:18:22.259
one thing that I would be worried about is the

00:18:22.269 --> 00:18:25.009
timeframe of a new route in process since there's so

00:18:25.009 --> 00:18:28.619
much economic development for that county tied to that

00:18:28.630 --> 00:18:33.130
in terms of a big steel plant, big plants like

00:18:33.130 --> 00:18:37.230
that obviously have a huge impact on county school

00:18:37.230 --> 00:18:40.829
taxes. Such that I wouldn't want any new proposed settlement

00:18:40.829 --> 00:18:44.200
to delay that and have how to officially say, well,

00:18:44.200 --> 00:18:46.589
we're going somewhere else because of it. And I would

00:18:46.589 --> 00:18:50.210
hope that the parties could come to an agreement quickly

00:18:50.210 --> 00:18:52.410
so that we can make sure that that is not an

00:18:52.410 --> 00:18:57.630
outcome. It seems like the routes, there

00:18:57.630 --> 00:19:00.200
are a finite number of routes here that have been studied

00:19:00.200 --> 00:19:04.559
and agreeing to another one might be fairly quick and that's gonna

00:19:04.569 --> 00:19:10.849
be helpful.
Yeah, I would encourage the parties to

00:19:11.339 --> 00:19:13.150
use all the tools at their disposal to come up with

00:19:13.150 --> 00:19:17.460
this settlement quickly. And I think any parties listening

00:19:17.460 --> 00:19:21.700
get a sense of this commission's concerned for aesthetics

00:19:21.700 --> 00:19:26.180
and native grasses versus reliability. So with that

00:19:26.190 --> 00:19:27.910
we'll entertain a motion to remand the docket back to SOAH

00:19:27.910 --> 00:19:29.700
for a hearing on the merits with instructions

00:19:29.700 --> 00:19:31.829
to get the best route with a settlement that does not

00:19:31.829 --> 00:19:34.039
cost $20 million dollars more than any other routes. Is

00:19:34.039 --> 00:19:39.170
there a motion?
So moved.
Second?
Second.
All in favor say aye.

00:19:40.039 --> 00:19:44.329
Motion passes. Thank you very much. Number five

00:19:44.329 --> 00:19:49.880
Please, Mr Journay
Item 5 is docket 51958. It's a petition of MineAll

00:19:49.880 --> 00:19:54.279
for an assessment of minimum use utility provider

00:19:54.279 --> 00:19:58.410
charges as dwelling unit facing charges. A proposal

00:19:58.410 --> 00:20:01.170
for decision was issued that recommends dismissal of

00:20:01.170 --> 00:20:04.440
the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

00:20:04.440 --> 00:20:09.329
We have a call back to our first item for

00:20:09.329 --> 00:20:12.130
today where we got the same third party vendor. We

00:20:12.140 --> 00:20:16.930
don't have clear documentation of representation of

00:20:16.930 --> 00:20:21.900
an owner like we did with Windsor. I think everything

00:20:21.900 --> 00:20:27.259
makes sense in this but we've as a 3rd party acting

00:20:27.259 --> 00:20:30.500
on behalf of the owner. But I need to see, in my

00:20:30.500 --> 00:20:33.950
mind, we need to see that ownership, thoughts?
 Right.

00:20:34.640 --> 00:20:37.029
There'sm I think there's two ways of approaching this

00:20:37.029 --> 00:20:39.740
case. One is, you know, remanding it back and get any

00:20:39.740 --> 00:20:42.299
evidence in the record as to whether my MineAll the

00:20:42.299 --> 00:20:44.710
authorized representatives and information regarding

00:20:44.720 --> 00:20:48.000
to the ordinances and the charges by the city of

00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:53.390
Frisco and Waco and other items related to this case

00:20:53.450 --> 00:20:56.200
to help us make a decision. But the other option that

00:20:56.200 --> 00:20:58.349
I think we should consider is just dismissing this

00:20:58.349 --> 00:21:01.640
case for lack of prosecution. The commission staff

00:21:01.640 --> 00:21:05.059
filed a motion to dismiss. There was order number two

00:21:05.539 --> 00:21:08.920
was issued

00:21:08.920 --> 00:21:13.670
and it required MineAll to respond on or before May 27

00:21:14.240 --> 00:21:17.049
And we haven't heard anything from MineAll since this

00:21:17.059 --> 00:21:20.519
case got filed in late March. And here we are with

00:21:20.529 --> 00:21:23.240
a lot of work on our plate and we

00:21:23.240 --> 00:21:27.059
haven't heard anything from them since they filed the petition

00:21:27.059 --> 00:21:29.309
and they didn't even respond to the motion to dismiss

00:21:29.309 --> 00:21:34.140
So I think in some ways we can remand it back and

00:21:34.140 --> 00:21:35.920
get the evidence in the record or we could just dismiss

00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:38.390
the case altogether and send a signal to parties that

00:21:38.390 --> 00:21:40.289
if you're gonna file petition and have us look at

00:21:40.289 --> 00:21:42.269
your information in the middle of all the work we've

00:21:42.279 --> 00:21:44.559
got going on and you should at least be responding

00:21:44.569 --> 00:21:46.960
back to orders that are issues requesting for a motion

00:21:47.390 --> 00:21:49.839
Just to confirm. They did not. They didn't reply to

00:21:49.839 --> 00:21:53.190
the motion dismissed by the May 27 date or since then

00:21:53.200 --> 00:21:55.710
at all?
They haven't filed anything in the record since

00:21:55.710 --> 00:21:58.240
March 31.

00:21:58.240 --> 00:22:03.460
That's a very good point, Commissioner Cobos. Staff

00:22:03.460 --> 00:22:07.119
time, doesn't, isn't at the disposal of 3rd party

00:22:07.119 --> 00:22:13.130
vendors. Thoughts?
I mean it's true, this service is an object

00:22:13.130 --> 00:22:18.109
lesson either way. We are dealing with more aggregated

00:22:18.119 --> 00:22:23.759
models where folks try to bundle bring in and

00:22:23.769 --> 00:22:26.339
so we either use this as an opportunity to establish

00:22:26.339 --> 00:22:29.829
a template or either way, as you say commissioner

00:22:29.839 --> 00:22:32.839
it's an object lesson, you know,

00:22:32.839 --> 00:22:36.569
we could dismiss. What do you think?
 Yeah, I prefer not to have every

00:22:36.569 --> 00:22:39.579
single owner coming here. I don't want to deter 3rd

00:22:39.579 --> 00:22:42.349
parties from doing this, but I think there's a legal

00:22:42.349 --> 00:22:45.960
way to assign responsibility and then come in here

00:22:46.539 --> 00:22:50.619
after the aggregate. They need to, they need to show that

00:22:50.619 --> 00:22:52.500
they are interested in this rather than an initial

00:22:52.500 --> 00:22:57.059
filing. I would be supportive of a dismissal motion

00:22:58.240 --> 00:23:02.859
as well.
We like, we like having 3rd party vendors

00:23:03.539 --> 00:23:06.440
process this for us instead of having to each

00:23:06.440 --> 00:23:09.710
on their own. But as we and it works well like we

00:23:09.710 --> 00:23:11.769
saw an item one with the same vendor but in this case

00:23:12.539 --> 00:23:15.279
they need to be responsive. Staff time doesn't come

00:23:15.279 --> 00:23:19.710
for free.
But either way folks watching this decision

00:23:20.119 --> 00:23:22.829
know that on the front end you need to file some sort

00:23:22.829 --> 00:23:26.670
of, you know, evidence that you are in fact representing

00:23:27.039 --> 00:23:30.750
these parties.
Yeah, you can't just show up asking

00:23:30.750 --> 00:23:35.539
for a decision or an order without having a basis

00:23:35.539 --> 00:23:39.930
in the real world. Is there a motion to dismiss?

00:23:41.539 --> 00:23:46.960
So moved.
Second? All in favor say aye. Motion passes.

00:23:49.200 --> 00:23:56.539
This brings us to item number nine, Mr. Journay.

00:23:56.539 --> 00:24:01.029
So item nine is what I fondly now call little ERCOT

00:24:01.029 --> 00:24:07.039
 As opposed to big ERCOT. I didn't like

00:24:07.039 --> 00:24:09.309
the Mary and the Nancy names I heard people throwing

00:24:09.309 --> 00:24:11.819
around. I don't know that we have, we have no paper

00:24:11.819 --> 00:24:15.400
on this item. I don't know anything to do on it. Well

00:24:15.609 --> 00:24:20.859
I have recused myself from both item nine and 10 so

00:24:21.240 --> 00:24:27.240
I'll step away and turn it over to Will.

00:24:27.240 --> 00:24:31.349
Chair calls up, Item number 10, docket number 52322

00:24:32.339 --> 00:24:36.099
Application for the electrical reliability council

00:24:36.099 --> 00:24:38.670
of texas inc for a debt obligation order to finance

00:24:38.670 --> 00:24:42.299
uplift  balances under PURA Chapter 39, sub chapter

00:24:42.299 --> 00:24:45.559
M for an order initiating a parallel docket for a

00:24:45.559 --> 00:24:49.839
good cause exception.

00:24:49.839 --> 00:24:53.440
Okay, so

00:24:53.440 --> 00:24:57.039
having kind of talked through this with staff

00:24:57.039 --> 00:25:01.839
I think we have a situation

00:25:01.839 --> 00:25:05.099
where we need to take a step by step approach to this

00:25:05.109 --> 00:25:09.779
It's a large substantive issue. And I think today

00:25:09.970 --> 00:25:15.390
what we should consider is whether there should be

00:25:15.390 --> 00:25:19.839
a parallel proceeding and the reason is because

00:25:19.849 --> 00:25:24.660
of the nature of the filings, the substance of the

00:25:24.670 --> 00:25:31.170
law and then the process is incumbent on it.

00:25:31.740 --> 00:25:36.789
So I think practically speaking it may be impossible

00:25:36.789 --> 00:25:41.450
to deal with everything under just this docket. So

00:25:42.240 --> 00:25:48.369
my feeling is that we should segregate docket number

00:25:48.380 --> 00:25:54.190
52322 into two proceedings for the purposes

00:25:54.190 --> 00:25:58.269
of organization and being able to house all the comments

00:25:58.279 --> 00:26:05.839
versus the verification on the types of

00:26:05.839 --> 00:26:08.740
parties.

00:26:08.740 --> 00:26:11.259
Comments?
I agree with you, Commissioner McAdams. I

00:26:11.259 --> 00:26:14.710
think we do need a home for some of the other important

00:26:14.720 --> 00:26:17.240
ancillary issues that may be addressed in this case

00:26:17.240 --> 00:26:18.930
and having a separate proceeding which I think has

00:26:18.930 --> 00:26:22.880
already been opened under 52364 at least for the LSC

00:26:22.880 --> 00:26:26.210
opt out that could be used as a home to address

00:26:26.220 --> 00:26:28.579
other matters that need to be addressed in this case

00:26:28.579 --> 00:26:33.410
that we don't have time to address within the short procedural

00:26:33.410 --> 00:26:39.740
schedule. In any case. 
I agree. Well, I think the

00:26:39.750 --> 00:26:44.740
process issues we need to get resolved. That kind

00:26:44.740 --> 00:26:47.359
of sets the tone for the entire case. The verification

00:26:47.359 --> 00:26:51.779
and quantification of who is in what bucket would be

00:26:51.789 --> 00:26:57.210
better served in a separate location.
Great now to decide if

00:26:57.210 --> 00:27:00.859
we do move forward on a separate proceeding what

00:27:00.859 --> 00:27:06.369
specifically is that to be used for? So are we

00:27:06.369 --> 00:27:10.049
somewhat of a mind to use that again as a repository

00:27:10.059 --> 00:27:15.500
for documentation of exposure to those costs and

00:27:15.500 --> 00:27:19.400
then and then also documentation for the opt outs.

00:27:21.039 --> 00:27:24.309
Yes, I mean ideally we had more time. The documentation

00:27:24.319 --> 00:27:28.680
for exposure. Most I think would be better served in

00:27:28.690 --> 00:27:30.490
in the case we're dealing with now but we just don't

00:27:30.500 --> 00:27:33.160
have that procedural schedule flexibility to address

00:27:33.160 --> 00:27:34.960
it in there. So I think that's the appropriate home

00:27:34.970 --> 00:27:41.230
Okay. I'm gonna agree with that.
Okay. As far as

00:27:41.240 --> 00:27:43.839
the issues that should be decided in this docket

00:27:43.849 --> 00:27:47.849
but again not today rather than in the parallel proceeding

00:27:48.440 --> 00:27:52.519
what do we think about the process for documenting

00:27:52.519 --> 00:27:55.960
exposure? Including deadlines and documentation that

00:27:55.960 --> 00:27:59.200
is required? Would you think that that should go

00:27:59.210 --> 00:28:03.140
in this docket?

00:28:03.140 --> 00:28:05.779
I think because we need to run it in parallel we need

00:28:05.789 --> 00:28:09.460
to consider studying the procedural schedule for all the

00:28:09.460 --> 00:28:12.640
documentation.

00:28:12.640 --> 00:28:17.890
Probably in this docket.
I agree. I think what documentation

00:28:17.900 --> 00:28:22.190
is necessary, setting out that that is important.
Including

00:28:22.200 --> 00:28:26.240
deadlines for opt out.

00:28:26.240 --> 00:28:30.589
Yes because the other cases is sort of just a repository

00:28:30.599 --> 00:28:34.549
Right? And this one has, is more of a--
This is the active

00:28:34.559 --> 00:28:41.359
action.
Exactly.
Okay, good. Now also under this

00:28:41.359 --> 00:28:43.680
one, the process for allocating funding in the amount

00:28:43.680 --> 00:28:48.059
of eligible charges that exceeds the 2.1 billion. So

00:28:48.640 --> 00:28:53.740
appropriation, the allocation.

00:28:53.740 --> 00:28:56.839


00:28:56.839 --> 00:29:00.230
Development of a process and methodology for prorations

00:29:00.230 --> 00:29:07.940
essentially.
Okay, I'm taking through it.

00:29:07.940 --> 00:29:13.509
in terms of those other issues that are certainly

00:29:13.519 --> 00:29:20.539
subject to comments filed, testimony filed, I

00:29:20.539 --> 00:29:22.559
believe we don't necessarily have to take those up

00:29:22.569 --> 00:29:25.339
today or discuss those, we will make any decisions on them

00:29:25.339 --> 00:29:32.119
today since I believe the testimony next week and

00:29:32.130 --> 00:29:35.430
the cross examination by parties. I do still think

00:29:35.430 --> 00:29:39.150
it would be enlightening to hear those before any

00:29:39.160 --> 00:29:42.700
final determination is made. But I welcome any thoughts

00:29:42.700 --> 00:29:47.450
I agree with you. I think we would all benefit from

00:29:48.039 --> 00:29:51.220
reading the rebuttal testimony and also carrying the

00:29:51.220 --> 00:29:53.720
live testimony and cross examination in the hearing

00:29:53.720 --> 00:29:56.170
next week.
It's critically important that we listen next week.

00:29:57.039 --> 00:30:01.789
Me too. All right. With that Mr Journey, you've

00:30:01.799 --> 00:30:06.289
heard the discussion. What else do we need procedurally

00:30:06.339 --> 00:30:11.039
to set the table for next month?
 So just to recount

00:30:11.039 --> 00:30:14.480
the commission believes a parallel proceeding is necessary

00:30:14.490 --> 00:30:18.059
and it's going to be used as a repository for documentation

00:30:18.059 --> 00:30:23.059
and to basically allow us determine who opt out and

00:30:23.640 --> 00:30:27.500
what is the final number of exposure. But we're going

00:30:27.500 --> 00:30:31.099
in this docket next week in our decision after that

00:30:31.109 --> 00:30:35.750
is developed the process for exposure. The process

00:30:35.750 --> 00:30:38.819
for opt out and the process for allocating if we exceed

00:30:38.819 --> 00:30:43.900
the two.
And all that feeds into an ultimate open meeting

00:30:43.910 --> 00:30:49.730
for any final cleanup decisions of September 23. Is

00:30:49.730 --> 00:30:52.839
that procedurally accurate?
I think that's the meeting

00:30:52.839 --> 00:30:56.839
that we can, we're going to have to go to law parties

00:30:56.839 --> 00:30:59.250
sometimes for post hearing briefs, we can't get to

00:30:59.259 --> 00:31:03.099
the first meeting in September. That gives a meeting

00:31:03.099 --> 00:31:07.140
to make your decision as to have enough direction to

00:31:07.140 --> 00:31:10.470
get an order finalized and bring to you at the October

00:31:10.470 --> 00:31:18.740
7 for adoption so that we meet our October 14 deadline.

00:31:18.740 --> 00:31:24.809
Acceptable to me. Commissioner Cobos?
Yes, I think that's...

00:31:24.809 --> 00:31:27.380
I think all the other details in the parallel proceeding

00:31:27.380 --> 00:31:30.609
we can leave to the judge to work out some

00:31:30.619 --> 00:31:33.289
whatever timelines they're based upon what the commission's

00:31:33.299 --> 00:31:39.410
decision is in this docket and then after the hearing next

00:31:39.410 --> 00:31:44.390
week, the commission can set dates for

00:31:44.390 --> 00:31:47.299
briefing and whatever else we need to do at that time

00:31:48.019 --> 00:31:51.970
In terms of any action item today, I think you recapped

00:31:51.980 --> 00:31:55.980
our thoughts well, so I don't think we need to take

00:31:55.980 --> 00:31:59.019
any further action at this time. Subject to next week's

00:31:59.049 --> 00:32:05.839
hearing.

00:32:05.839 --> 00:32:08.390
I mean, it probably would be beneficial for the commission

00:32:08.390 --> 00:32:11.160
to go ahead and entertain a motion and adopt this discussion

00:32:11.170 --> 00:32:13.349
of the parallel proceeding and the issues that they're

00:32:13.359 --> 00:32:18.359
going to punch out of this docket into that proceeding's.

00:32:18.740 --> 00:32:23.799
All right. The chair would entertain a motion to memorialize

00:32:23.809 --> 00:32:29.799
the comments on proceedings for a process regarding

00:32:29.809 --> 00:32:37.940
docket number 52322 and securitization at this time.

00:32:37.940 --> 00:32:43.410
So moved.
Seconded.
All those in favor--
Commissioner

00:32:43.420 --> 00:32:47.259
may I ask one clarification. Ronn Moss, Attorney for

00:32:47.269 --> 00:32:51.119
ERCOT, we have our rebuttal testimony due tomorrow

00:32:51.130 --> 00:32:55.380
and one of the issues that we will be responding to

00:32:55.390 --> 00:33:00.220
are party's assertions that ERCOT should be the one

00:33:00.220 --> 00:33:03.859
that provides the information to document the exposure.

00:33:04.339 --> 00:33:07.450
Our position is going to be that we don't have all

00:33:07.450 --> 00:33:09.769
that information that's needed. That this is going

00:33:09.769 --> 00:33:14.140
to be the LSEs are going to have to provide a good

00:33:14.140 --> 00:33:17.049
amount of that information. What I'm trying to understand

00:33:17.049 --> 00:33:19.650
is what do we still need to address that issue or is

00:33:19.650 --> 00:33:21.559
this something that was going to put over in the parallel

00:33:21.569 --> 00:33:26.920
docket?
So having discussed this with staff, that is

00:33:26.920 --> 00:33:29.400
one of the topics that I'll be interested in in terms

00:33:29.400 --> 00:33:33.160
of the testimony next week as well as cross examination

00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:37.049
of parties to determine what the arguments are. Again

00:33:37.049 --> 00:33:39.170
we don't know what we don't know. So we're bringing

00:33:39.170 --> 00:33:43.609
forward facts as we sort of go along here and I think

00:33:43.609 --> 00:33:46.619
it's important for ERCOT to be able to respond to

00:33:46.619 --> 00:33:48.869
market participants who assert that you do have the

00:33:48.880 --> 00:33:51.730
data and to what degree you have it and therefore that

00:33:51.730 --> 00:33:54.809
will help play into our mind on what we need to verify

00:33:54.809 --> 00:33:58.250
these numbers. Then we will go into that rebuttal testimony

00:33:58.259 --> 00:34:02.720
I have one question in terms of volumes of data that

00:34:02.720 --> 00:34:06.559
you don't think you have, is it, I mean ERCOT is

00:34:06.559 --> 00:34:10.820
obviously the clearinghouse for settlement structure

00:34:10.820 --> 00:34:15.840
we have in ERCOT for every transaction. What types

00:34:15.840 --> 00:34:19.309
of things do you think you don't have?
Well, I'm not

00:34:19.309 --> 00:34:22.000
the expert here, we'll have Mr Ogleman and Mr Taylor

00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:24.639
here next week to discuss that but I can tell you that

00:34:24.650 --> 00:34:28.130
for example, we don't have insight into the particular

00:34:28.130 --> 00:34:31.130
relationships between the QSEs and the LSEs

00:34:31.130 --> 00:34:35.130
And we don't for example if the commission were

00:34:35.130 --> 00:34:37.059
to say there should be netting, we certainly don't

00:34:37.070 --> 00:34:42.260
have the transparency into the relationships that an

00:34:42.260 --> 00:34:47.750
individual QSE or LSE or whoever might have as between

00:34:47.760 --> 00:34:49.809
the amount that they receive and the amount that they're

00:34:49.820 --> 00:34:53.530
doing. So there's there's lots of holes that would

00:34:53.530 --> 00:34:56.650
need to be filled with that and I'd have to anything

00:34:56.650 --> 00:34:59.530
beyond that level, I have to defer to Mr Ogleman and Mr Taylor

00:34:59.699 --> 00:35:04.639
Thank you. So really just to come back, Will. I may

00:35:04.639 --> 00:35:12.400
wait for but for right now It's a question of to degrees as

00:35:12.400 --> 00:35:16.900
to the data that market holds. So you do have basic

00:35:16.900 --> 00:35:20.000
market clearing data, which you have as as the function

00:35:20.000 --> 00:35:23.369
of the market administrator. Yes, but it's that QSE

00:35:23.380 --> 00:35:26.500
and beyond relationship that you don't have visibility

00:35:26.500 --> 00:35:30.860
on. So for our perspective, it becomes that question

00:35:30.860 --> 00:35:34.730
of to what degree of the netting that would be considered

00:35:34.739 --> 00:35:38.460
should we go in that direction? 
That's part of it.

00:35:38.460 --> 00:35:40.840
I think it's beyond just the netting though. I think

00:35:40.840 --> 00:35:44.449
there's also some other relationships there. We don't

00:35:44.460 --> 00:35:47.280
we don't financially interact with LSEs, we don't

00:35:47.289 --> 00:35:50.469
financially interact with resource entities and so there

00:35:50.469 --> 00:35:53.500
may be some contractual relationships between QSEs

00:35:53.500 --> 00:35:56.000
and LSEs that we don't really have any visibility

00:35:56.000 --> 00:35:59.500
into, but again, I'm getting out beyond what I'm--

00:35:59.510 --> 00:36:04.429
Look forward to next week.
Thanks sir.

00:36:04.429 --> 00:36:08.119
Mr Journay, you need anything else from us?
No sir, I'm

00:36:08.119 --> 00:36:11.750
just trying to get someone start drafting that order.
Mr Chairman?

00:36:12.530 --> 00:36:16.929
I think I'll remand it back over to you, sir.

00:36:16.929 --> 00:36:20.230


00:36:20.230 --> 00:36:22.900
(chatter)

00:36:29.829 --> 00:36:34.630


00:36:34.630 --> 00:36:36.630


00:36:36.630 --> 00:36:40.510
Moves us to item number 11. I don't have anything for 11

00:36:40.510 --> 00:36:45.949
through 13. Do y'all?
Mr Chairman on 11, if we could.

00:36:47.530 --> 00:36:51.980
As an opportunity for discussion.
Absolutely.

00:36:51.980 --> 00:36:57.769
In terms of our workshop last week in our

00:36:57.769 --> 00:37:02.409
both discussion and intended instruction to staff and

00:37:02.409 --> 00:37:06.670
what to rework, I wanted to bring up the effective

00:37:06.679 --> 00:37:10.389
dates on whatever we're looking just to direct their

00:37:10.389 --> 00:37:13.300
timelines.
For our procedures or the implementation?

00:37:13.300 --> 00:37:16.940
Well both really, sir, just the mechanics of it and what

00:37:16.949 --> 00:37:21.820
we envisioned. Because this will determine how

00:37:21.829 --> 00:37:25.280
quickly industry needs to set the work trying to come

00:37:25.280 --> 00:37:29.079
up to that standard of the 2011 standard. So we said

00:37:29.079 --> 00:37:34.619
December 1. Was that for the effective date of

00:37:34.630 --> 00:37:40.750
the rule or publication in your mind? How soon do we

00:37:40.750 --> 00:37:45.610
need to--
I think what I took away from the conversation

00:37:45.610 --> 00:37:50.989
last week was we want to publish the rule, Phase one

00:37:50.989 --> 00:37:54.119
If you will, before we get to the more robust post

00:37:54.119 --> 00:37:57.849
weather report or the post weather study, Phase two.

00:37:58.329 --> 00:38:04.739
But for Phase one we want to publish the,

00:38:04.750 --> 00:38:08.050
go through the accelerated rulemaking process to get

00:38:08.050 --> 00:38:13.119
that out and formalized as soon as possible with the

00:38:13.119 --> 00:38:19.199
intention that for Phase 1, 2011, 2011 standards plus

00:38:20.019 --> 00:38:27.190
mitigating specific issues that went wrong or malfunctions

00:38:27.199 --> 00:38:30.789
disruptions, et cetera from the 2021 event. Those two

00:38:30.789 --> 00:38:36.340
items be repaired, be addressed, mitigated and resolved

00:38:37.519 --> 00:38:40.570
And those standards put in place by December 1, in

00:38:40.579 --> 00:38:45.360
preparation for this winter, I think we could, we would

00:38:45.369 --> 00:38:48.199
we would want some sort of documentation and of course

00:38:48.199 --> 00:38:53.590
if there were issues, if for what, some reason a particular

00:38:53.590 --> 00:38:56.920
issue had not been addressed,

00:38:56.920 --> 00:38:59.710
need to know a plan to address it, why it hasn't been

00:38:59.710 --> 00:39:01.969
addressed by that point in time and a plan to address

00:39:01.969 --> 00:39:05.610
it or mitigate it and that was what my understanding

00:39:05.610 --> 00:39:09.269
was with this discussion.
So we have to meet the statutory

00:39:09.269 --> 00:39:12.559
deadline, and that's statutory deadline of December 1

00:39:12.570 --> 00:39:17.539
we would be, we would move to have the phase one, whether

00:39:17.539 --> 00:39:20.599
these contenders in place, but now as we have sort of

00:39:20.599 --> 00:39:24.809
a very defined role based on our discussion and in our direction

00:39:24.820 --> 00:39:27.619
from the workshop and as the chairman just described, we should

00:39:27.619 --> 00:39:30.769
be able to get something out as soon as possible that

00:39:30.769 --> 00:39:34.380
provides direction to the stakeholder community on

00:39:34.380 --> 00:39:36.570
what the generators and the TSP's and what they need

00:39:36.570 --> 00:39:40.420
to do to be able to comply with that Phase one set

00:39:40.420 --> 00:39:43.639
of standards which are based on addressing acute

00:39:43.639 --> 00:39:46.840
problems that were identified from the 2021 winter

00:39:46.840 --> 00:39:50.380
storm coming up to standard on 2021 and attesting to

00:39:50.380 --> 00:39:55.750
that and if there are issues in a meeting, those

00:39:56.119 --> 00:40:00.050
two standards based on supply chain issues or any other

00:40:00.050 --> 00:40:04.800
issues to let us know in their attestation and provide

00:40:04.800 --> 00:40:06.960
us with the timeline as to when they expect to address

00:40:06.960 --> 00:40:11.039
them and to keep us posted. So regular schedule.
Just to

00:40:11.039 --> 00:40:13.889
recap what I'm hearing from a functional project

00:40:13.889 --> 00:40:17.079
management timeline, effective date December 1,

00:40:17.909 --> 00:40:23.530
2021. 
Implementation of the rule will

00:40:23.530 --> 00:40:26.239
be published before the statutory deadline of November

00:40:26.239 --> 00:40:30.929
30 or December 1.
That's right.
Okay. So the rule timetable

00:40:30.929 --> 00:40:34.539
would be as fast as possible.
Exactly.
So we're gonna

00:40:34.550 --> 00:40:38.550
get--
---can help us clarify a few points. Thank

00:40:38.550 --> 00:40:40.309
you

00:40:40.309 --> 00:40:45.309


00:40:45.309 --> 00:40:47.210
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Barksdale

00:40:47.210 --> 00:40:49.630
English on behalf of commission staff. I think there's

00:40:50.340 --> 00:40:52.909
there's three important deadlines to be thinking about

00:40:52.909 --> 00:40:55.630
The first and most important is the statutory requirement

00:40:55.630 --> 00:41:00.940
that the rule be adopted so that folks have to implement

00:41:00.940 --> 00:41:05.050
those rules by December 1. The second is the actual

00:41:05.050 --> 00:41:10.050
date of adoption under the administrative procedures

00:41:10.050 --> 00:41:14.980
act, you have to adopt the rule at least 20 days before

00:41:15.280 --> 00:41:20.159
that first date, that effective date. And then backing

00:41:20.159 --> 00:41:25.429
up before that is the day when you published your draft

00:41:25.429 --> 00:41:28.590
rule, which we are looking to do next week. So that's

00:41:28.599 --> 00:41:30.590
kind of the three milestones I think you need

00:41:30.590 --> 00:41:34.110
to think about procedurally.
So it's tight and so those

00:41:34.110 --> 00:41:38.010
are the procedural milestones and then the,

00:41:38.010 --> 00:41:41.380
if the compliance deadline on the part of industry

00:41:41.389 --> 00:41:47.610
lines up with the, and I'm sorry, legislative, I just

00:41:47.610 --> 00:41:50.329
keep thinking effective dates whenever the law is the

00:41:50.329 --> 00:41:55.940
law. With that ultimate effective date for enforcement

00:41:55.940 --> 00:41:59.820
so that you go out and start checking. Do we want

00:41:59.820 --> 00:42:02.880
that to be sort of the alignment or do they need a

00:42:02.889 --> 00:42:06.170
grace period to come into compliance because there's

00:42:06.170 --> 00:42:08.559
all these skilled tradesmen. And now delta variant

00:42:08.570 --> 00:42:12.190
is impacting that skilled tradesmen population, things

00:42:12.190 --> 00:42:16.239
like that. So kinda why I asked.
I think there's

00:42:16.239 --> 00:42:19.090
probably two paths that you can take here. One is you

00:42:19.090 --> 00:42:21.639
can be explicit in the rule and provide an offramp

00:42:21.920 --> 00:42:24.769
good cause exception, something of that nature.
And

00:42:24.769 --> 00:42:28.760
then the attestation and remediation strategy can bring

00:42:28.760 --> 00:42:33.380
yourself up to the rules standards. 
Yes.
I think

00:42:33.380 --> 00:42:35.619
We need to be hard up front. We need to say--

00:42:35.619 --> 00:42:40.349
You gotta have it.
Yeah can't beat the dog ate my homework

00:42:40.360 --> 00:42:44.449
We expect it to be done by December 1

00:42:44.449 --> 00:42:47.980
If it's not we'll consider--
--extenuating circumstances

00:42:47.980 --> 00:42:49.260
They couldn't get the equipment that they were going

00:42:49.260 --> 00:42:51.969
to put them on or supply chain issues. There

00:42:51.969 --> 00:42:55.510
are workforce issues that they are very legitimate--

00:42:55.519 --> 00:43:00.179
Specific issues like a letter from a supplier explaining

00:43:01.130 --> 00:43:06.730
90 day backorder for, not just its busy right now.
Exactly.

00:43:07.199 --> 00:43:11.269
So an attestation with what they're going, what they're

00:43:11.269 --> 00:43:16.079
doing to come up to 2011, 2021 issues and then if there

00:43:16.079 --> 00:43:20.130
are extenuating circumstances provide documents, another

00:43:20.130 --> 00:43:22.800
attestation or the same attestation with supporting

00:43:22.800 --> 00:43:25.250
documentation and a timeline as to when you're going

00:43:25.250 --> 00:43:28.460
to address how that issue address and if you don't

00:43:28.460 --> 00:43:30.519
have on, then circle back and let us know when

00:43:30.519 --> 00:43:33.500
you do, keep us posted because it just can't be an

00:43:33.510 --> 00:43:37.530
open--
Can I ask a general question in the

00:43:37.530 --> 00:43:42.530
dokcet, and that is we are, we being citizens of

00:43:42.530 --> 00:43:44.880
the state, are obviously stunned by what happened in

00:43:44.889 --> 00:43:49.219
February. Weatherization standards and I think

00:43:49.219 --> 00:43:51.949
the statute is even more general than just saying winter

00:43:51.949 --> 00:43:55.349
weather, there's summer weather also, and we've done

00:43:55.349 --> 00:43:58.300
a lot in our obviously summer peaks, we do a lot to

00:43:58.309 --> 00:44:02.869
try to ensure that our plants are weatherized but have

00:44:02.869 --> 00:44:07.429
we looked at what are their summer weather rising things

00:44:07.429 --> 00:44:10.809
that need to happen that may be a part of this rule

00:44:10.809 --> 00:44:15.170
as well? Just as kind of a general

00:44:15.170 --> 00:44:19.239
sense.
In phase two. Absolutely, it will be in all seasons

00:44:19.250 --> 00:44:22.949
rule. For phase one. We were hearing the acute need

00:44:22.960 --> 00:44:26.559
to address the upcoming winter and I'm sure that whatever

00:44:26.559 --> 00:44:29.969
issues we may have experienced last winter have at

00:44:29.969 --> 00:44:33.119
least been thought about and and work is being done

00:44:33.119 --> 00:44:36.070
on it.
Perfect. Yeah, this, this is, this new timeline

00:44:36.070 --> 00:44:39.280
has been driven by, Commissioner Cobos made a very good point

00:44:39.280 --> 00:44:42.079
that we don't want to build, looking for the cart before

00:44:42.079 --> 00:44:44.500
the horse and that we don't want to make Phase two

00:44:44.500 --> 00:44:47.619
rules, robust weatherization rules before we have the

00:44:48.590 --> 00:44:50.500
weather study and analysis that they're supposed to

00:44:50.510 --> 00:44:54.579
be based on. But more importantly, we want to make

00:44:54.579 --> 00:44:58.000
sure our generator fleet is in better shape and more

00:44:58.000 --> 00:45:00.349
resilient going into this winter than it was last winter

00:45:00.869 --> 00:45:07.320
And so, this phased approach is a way to both, first

00:45:07.320 --> 00:45:10.150
and foremost to prepare ourselves, our fleet for the

00:45:10.150 --> 00:45:14.239
winter. So Texas is in better shape. And also of

00:45:14.239 --> 00:45:17.739
course fulfill the statutory deadline for having rules

00:45:17.739 --> 00:45:22.260
in place. And I think we've got a good

00:45:22.260 --> 00:45:24.150
sense on what the standard in Phase one needs to

00:45:24.159 --> 00:45:28.110
be 2011, broadly and then acute problems resolved from

00:45:29.090 --> 00:45:31.889
2021 event.

00:45:31.889 --> 00:45:34.449
So I think looking at the calendar, Will, you know

00:45:35.789 --> 00:45:41.130
you said, correctly said that the schedule is tight on

00:45:41.130 --> 00:45:44.880
all of these things. Possibly we're looking for

00:45:44.889 --> 00:45:48.320
staff to have a proposal for publication next Thursday

00:45:48.320 --> 00:45:52.219
the 26th. And if that's approved, then we would

00:45:52.230 --> 00:45:55.719
have, we could do an accelerated public comment period.

00:45:57.190 --> 00:46:01.679
Staff's normal processes to provide 30 days for public

00:46:01.679 --> 00:46:05.409
comment, but I think the commission can choose to shorten

00:46:05.409 --> 00:46:07.960
the timeline if it feels like it's in the public interest.

00:46:07.969 --> 00:46:12.099
Can we achieve your no later than day for all this

00:46:12.110 --> 00:46:17.500
without an expedited comment?
Well, the, I think

00:46:18.280 --> 00:46:22.139
we can get the rule adopted and effective but what we're

00:46:22.139 --> 00:46:25.659
doing is we're making it a very short time period from

00:46:25.829 --> 00:46:28.099
the moment in which the rule becomes effective to the

00:46:28.099 --> 00:46:31.030
moment the generators and transmission service providers

00:46:31.030 --> 00:46:32.960
have to implement the rule.
Do we need to make that

00:46:32.960 --> 00:46:36.219
decision today to give, to give everybody--
--I don't

00:46:36.219 --> 00:46:39.210
know that we need to make it today, but I think the

00:46:39.219 --> 00:46:41.929
variable here is, do we we do the full 30 days, we've

00:46:41.929 --> 00:46:44.619
got to respond to comments, which is a big unknown

00:46:44.699 --> 00:46:48.789
but that's required by law, and then depending on

00:46:48.789 --> 00:46:53.409
how long that takes, how much, what time frame do the

00:46:54.380 --> 00:46:58.760
generators have to implement the final rule?
We are

00:46:58.760 --> 00:47:01.619
hoping of course that they are not waiting on us that

00:47:01.619 --> 00:47:04.739
they are taking industry prudent actions to weatherize

00:47:04.739 --> 00:47:08.500
before. Maybe a few modifications if we have

00:47:08.510 --> 00:47:11.610
changes to that, but they are already well into that

00:47:11.619 --> 00:47:15.630
process.
We would certainly hope so. So we don't

00:47:15.630 --> 00:47:17.969
need to decide this today, but I would put it out there

00:47:17.980 --> 00:47:24.980
for consideration that given the extensive

00:47:24.980 --> 00:47:28.570
stakeholder input this commission has engaged in with

00:47:28.579 --> 00:47:33.030
workshops, staff at the staff level has been beyond

00:47:33.030 --> 00:47:38.760
robust. I would be comfortable shortening the public

00:47:38.760 --> 00:47:41.179
comment period.

00:47:41.179 --> 00:47:44.829
Because of the extensive stakeholder engagement

00:47:44.829 --> 00:47:51.090
we've just made in shortening it to 10, 15 days

00:47:52.179 --> 00:47:56.429
but we don't have to figure that out today

00:47:56.440 --> 00:47:59.429
but something to think about again with the notion

00:47:59.429 --> 00:48:02.530
that we want to give these, give the generators time

00:48:02.530 --> 00:48:05.489
they need to implement anything that they haven't already

00:48:05.489 --> 00:48:09.900
undertaken in good faith. So that at the end of the

00:48:09.909 --> 00:48:12.469
day we can have a Texas fleet in as good a shape

00:48:12.469 --> 00:48:16.150
as possible for December 1.
What's our maximum flexibility

00:48:16.150 --> 00:48:19.260
on an expedited comment period? What tools do we have

00:48:19.260 --> 00:48:24.070
in the toolbox? Can we set anything or are we constrained

00:48:24.079 --> 00:48:28.110
by Texas Administrative Code and or statute?

00:48:28.110 --> 00:48:30.960
I'll have to defer to a lawyer on interpretation of

00:48:30.960 --> 00:48:36.369
theEPA.
Mr Smelter?

00:48:36.369 --> 00:48:40.530
David Smelter, commission staff. Uh, no, you're,

00:48:40.539 --> 00:48:43.539
there's no specific minimum standard. I think the rule

00:48:43.539 --> 00:48:47.519
of thumb that we use is that the absolute minimum we

00:48:47.519 --> 00:48:49.389
would ever give on a comment period, we try never

00:48:49.400 --> 00:48:51.989
to go below 10 calendar days because that's sort of

00:48:52.469 --> 00:48:55.559
a week and a half to read and think about and produce a thoughtful

00:48:55.559 --> 00:48:58.829
response. On this, speaking to what Barksdale said,

00:48:58.829 --> 00:49:01.260
I think we have it built in to where there is still

00:49:01.260 --> 00:49:03.320
a couple of open meetings for your consideration at

00:49:03.320 --> 00:49:06.550
the back end. If we move quickly and this will be sort

00:49:06.550 --> 00:49:08.780
of an all hands on deck to get the comments summarized

00:49:08.789 --> 00:49:12.480
So, you know, the full 30 days would be rough with

00:49:12.869 --> 00:49:17.389
expedited schedule, but you know, well, we'll think

00:49:17.389 --> 00:49:19.630
more about it and we'll have a pitch for that along

00:49:19.630 --> 00:49:22.650
with the draft next week. I had in my head maybe

00:49:22.650 --> 00:49:25.409
about three weeks, maybe we can go down to 2.5 or two

00:49:25.409 --> 00:49:29.449
but we'll have some well thought out periods as part

00:49:29.449 --> 00:49:32.170
of the PFP proposal for you next week.
That would be

00:49:32.170 --> 00:49:34.860
great to have some options of how we can move forward

00:49:34.860 --> 00:49:38.639
procedurally for next week's work sessions would be

00:49:38.650 --> 00:49:41.510
great. I think another thing to consider as we're talking

00:49:41.510 --> 00:49:45.980
about publishing a proposal for publication and the

00:49:45.980 --> 00:49:50.289
comments that would be filed in response to that PFD

00:49:51.269 --> 00:49:56.760
whether reply comments are required.
Commissioner, I

00:49:56.760 --> 00:49:59.469
think our view was under this expedited timeframe.

00:49:59.480 --> 00:50:02.340
We had not built in a reply comment because there

00:50:02.340 --> 00:50:05.789
was such robust discussion. I hesitate to say it

00:50:05.789 --> 00:50:09.079
out loud, but if any party has urgent issues, every

00:50:09.079 --> 00:50:12.909
PFP comes with the ability to request a hearing, which

00:50:12.909 --> 00:50:14.570
if we had to do, we would do like two or three

00:50:14.570 --> 00:50:16.260
days after the comment period and we could receive

00:50:16.260 --> 00:50:19.500
oral responses. So we're always hopeful not to do

00:50:19.500 --> 00:50:22.019
that because it's time consuming, but it is a sort

00:50:22.019 --> 00:50:25.610
of escape hatch for critical issues if necessary.

00:50:25.610 --> 00:50:27.610
I was wondering because before you have that short

00:50:27.619 --> 00:50:31.130
comment period there was a way that we can kind of

00:50:31.139 --> 00:50:33.469
trim it down, but it sounds like your expedited

00:50:33.480 --> 00:50:35.449
comment period's already taking account one round of

00:50:35.449 --> 00:50:38.170
comments.
I think you have a third tool as well and

00:50:38.170 --> 00:50:43.789
that's to limit the number of pages

00:50:43.789 --> 00:50:46.869
and perhaps a fourth tool to make Thomas sharpen his pencil

00:50:46.869 --> 00:50:52.159
so he has to write comment summaries as well.

00:50:52.159 --> 00:50:55.099
Yeah. It sounds like we have another executive session

00:50:55.099 --> 00:51:00.110
in the future.
Yeah. Thank you. All right. We've

00:51:00.110 --> 00:51:02.750
got some things to, thank you, Mr Smelter. We've

00:51:02.750 --> 00:51:06.599
got some things to think about on that. Any other questions

00:51:06.599 --> 00:51:10.409
for, anything else.
No, sir. Thank you, appreciate the

00:51:10.409 --> 00:51:14.780
conversation.
Thank you for the hard work on an ever

00:51:14.780 --> 00:51:17.460
accelerating timeline.

00:51:17.460 --> 00:51:23.760
We'll try to accelerate more next week.

00:51:23.760 --> 00:51:28.949
All right. That covers item 11. I don't have anything

00:51:28.960 --> 00:51:37.199
for 12 or 13. Several of the next items were consented

00:51:37.199 --> 00:51:40.530
That brings us to item 17. Lay that out for us, Mr Journay.

00:51:41.909 --> 00:51:47.659
Item 17 is project 52307. Before you is a proposed

00:51:47.659 --> 00:51:50.550
order that would approve 16 rules of ERCOT included

00:51:50.550 --> 00:51:54.230
No protocols, protocol operating guides, planning guides,

00:51:54.239 --> 00:51:57.519
resource registration, glossary, providing documents

00:51:57.519 --> 00:52:01.579
system changes, retail market guide and the associated

00:52:01.579 --> 00:52:04.590
market impact statements. Commission staff filed a recommendation

00:52:04.949 --> 00:52:09.949
over approval of all groups.

00:52:09.949 --> 00:52:14.429
I'm sure you have all seen the memo from staff

00:52:14.440 --> 00:52:18.829
and there been plenty of robust discussions about many

00:52:18.829 --> 00:52:22.929
of these rules. I don't have any thoughts or comments.

00:52:22.929 --> 00:52:26.780
from y'all?
I do not.
I'm sorry. I forgot to

00:52:26.780 --> 00:52:31.400
tell you. Staff provided a proposed order

00:52:31.409 --> 00:52:35.349
that would improve all these rules.

00:52:35.349 --> 00:52:38.650
Very good point. Thank you.

00:52:38.650 --> 00:52:44.800
Is there a motion to approve the calendar year 2021

00:52:44.800 --> 00:52:47.769
rules previously adopted by the independent organization

00:52:47.920 --> 00:52:51.900
and the proposed order?
So moved
Second.
All in favor say aye.

00:52:51.900 --> 00:52:56.420
Motion passes. Item 18

00:52:56.420 --> 00:53:02.699
please, sir.
Item 18 is Project 52312. It's a rule on the

00:53:02.710 --> 00:53:04.980
administrative penalties. We have no paper on this.

00:53:06.650 --> 00:53:09.650
Pretty straightforward.

00:53:09.650 --> 00:53:14.250
Questions, comments?

00:53:14.250 --> 00:53:16.489
All right. Is there a motion to issue the proposal

00:53:16.489 --> 00:53:21.849
for publication?
So moved.

00:53:21.849 --> 00:53:25.650
I don't know that we have one.

00:53:25.650 --> 00:53:28.530
I read one. Did you?
All right. Well, I'm behind the curve.

00:53:28.630 --> 00:53:32.349
Yeah, I mean Andy will, David Smelter, commission staff.

00:53:32.360 --> 00:53:34.039
Andy will be checking in real time right now, but

00:53:34.039 --> 00:53:38.070
I'm pretty sure we filed one.

00:53:38.070 --> 00:53:42.190
Yeah.
Can hide million dollars in a lot of places.

00:53:42.199 --> 00:53:45.179
I also looked at the wrong number.
I just wanted to

00:53:45.179 --> 00:53:47.079
show Barksdale that weatherization rule could be done

00:53:47.079 --> 00:53:50.159
quickly and efficiently. So, this one is extreme.

00:53:50.159 --> 00:53:53.809
Wow. And after lunch we will have the commission

00:53:53.809 --> 00:54:00.139
staff cage match. All right. Is there

00:54:00.139 --> 00:54:04.840
a motion to issue the proposal for publication?

00:54:04.840 --> 00:54:08.949
All in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr Smelter.

00:54:08.949 --> 00:54:14.440
I don't have anything on 19 through 21.

00:54:14.440 --> 00:54:18.880
Alright, brings us to 22, update on ERCOT. We have

00:54:18.889 --> 00:54:23.579
Christine Hobson and Shane Thomas here to provide the Commissioner

00:54:23.579 --> 00:54:27.340
COVID update

00:54:27.340 --> 00:54:29.840
All right. Good morning, Commissioners Christie Hobbs

00:54:29.840 --> 00:54:32.510
for the record. Vice president of Corporate Strategy

00:54:32.510 --> 00:54:35.150
and PUC relations for ERCOT. Thank you for having

00:54:35.150 --> 00:54:38.960
me here this morning. As you're well aware, we're

00:54:38.960 --> 00:54:42.230
well into our summer operations. And so I'd like to

00:54:42.230 --> 00:54:44.880
take this opportunity just to give you some updates

00:54:44.880 --> 00:54:47.550
on what we've been seeing from a demand perspective

00:54:47.559 --> 00:54:50.610
the performance of our renewable generation fleet as

00:54:50.610 --> 00:54:53.800
well as outage updates on the thermal generation

00:54:53.800 --> 00:54:57.710
aspect. So I'd like to kind of start off by taking

00:54:57.710 --> 00:55:01.840
a look back at last week. And what we experienced during

00:55:01.840 --> 00:55:04.800
the weekdays, what we saw was both demand and our wind

00:55:04.800 --> 00:55:07.769
output was a little bit higher. But as we got to

00:55:07.769 --> 00:55:10.550
the end of the week, as we started experiencing showers

00:55:10.550 --> 00:55:13.159
over the region, we did see both of those start to

00:55:13.159 --> 00:55:17.289
decline. The peak demand ranged in the 70 to

00:55:17.289 --> 00:55:21.329
73,000 megawatt range throughout the week. We saw the

00:55:21.340 --> 00:55:25.440
peak on Monday

00:55:25.440 --> 00:55:29.130
of last week. From a renewable perspective, we actually

00:55:29.130 --> 00:55:32.530
saw wind at or above our seasonal expectations for

00:55:32.530 --> 00:55:36.349
most of the week. Each of those peak times during

00:55:36.349 --> 00:55:42.059
the weekday and we experienced a high of 18,700 MW

00:55:42.070 --> 00:55:49.190
on Tuesday.
So 27,000 MW installed?
Yes, we're just

00:55:49.199 --> 00:55:53.800
over 26,000 close to 27.
Was that just wind?
That was

00:55:53.800 --> 00:55:58.090
just the wind, just wind at the 18,000 range. What

00:55:58.090 --> 00:56:00.989
we saw was solar last week was in the 4 to 5000

00:56:00.989 --> 00:56:04.179
megawatt range. And that was really because we saw

00:56:04.190 --> 00:56:07.429
showers impacting in the West Texas region, where

00:56:07.440 --> 00:56:10.679
we have a lot of solar capability. From an aggregate

00:56:10.679 --> 00:56:13.400
thermal outage perspective, we saw those in the range

00:56:13.400 --> 00:56:18.230
of 5 to 6000 megawatts. And it got somewhat lower

00:56:18.230 --> 00:56:20.440
as we went through the week, getting to the weekend

00:56:20.449 --> 00:56:24.210
so this week, to date, what we've seen is, you

00:56:24.210 --> 00:56:26.360
know, we continue to see sufficient generation to meet

00:56:26.360 --> 00:56:29.139
demand. Peak demand has actually been a little bit

00:56:29.139 --> 00:56:32.750
lower than what we forecasted. And as you can imagine

00:56:32.750 --> 00:56:35.809
in this world where we're operating a lot more conservatively,

00:56:35.820 --> 00:56:38.539
we've seen the potential for showers in our forecast

00:56:38.539 --> 00:56:40.809
but we can't depend on those showers to show up. So

00:56:40.809 --> 00:56:43.750
what you can affect seeing as demand's actually coming

00:56:43.750 --> 00:56:46.570
in a little bit lower than what we had forecasted earlier

00:56:46.570 --> 00:56:49.789
in the week. And actually that we've seen that

00:56:49.789 --> 00:56:53.489
we saw high on Monday around 68,000, Tuesday drop down

00:56:53.489 --> 00:56:57.650
to 60, yesterday, we were back up to 63,000. So

00:56:57.659 --> 00:57:01.250
for this time of season, definitely lower than the demand.

00:57:01.730 --> 00:57:05.130
From a renewable perspective, we've continued to see

00:57:05.130 --> 00:57:09.300
wind in the 4-6,000 range this week, but it has started

00:57:09.300 --> 00:57:13.889
picking up, got back up to 13,000 yesterday. And as

00:57:13.889 --> 00:57:16.670
we look ahead to next week, we're starting to see that

00:57:16.679 --> 00:57:20.250
increase as well from wind performance.

00:57:20.260 --> 00:57:24.539
Is that, what are the general hours for those peak times?

00:57:24.550 --> 00:57:27.340
Those are at peak times. Those numbers. Yes sir.

00:57:28.429 --> 00:57:30.690
The solar performance this week. Again in the

00:57:30.690 --> 00:57:34.039
4000 range as we've seen those showers across the region

00:57:34.530 --> 00:57:37.929
The thermal generation outages have this week been

00:57:37.940 --> 00:57:40.130
up a little bit from last week. We're seeing those

00:57:40.130 --> 00:57:44.210
in the 7000 range. What we're seeing some

00:57:44.210 --> 00:57:46.769
of those incremental outages, taking the opportunity

00:57:46.769 --> 00:57:50.119
to prepare issues so that it can be back online

00:57:50.119 --> 00:57:53.750
next week because as we look at next week, Hurricane

00:57:53.750 --> 00:57:57.800
Grace through the end of this week is gonna, shouldn't

00:57:57.800 --> 00:58:01.090
impact the region. We're expecting drier conditions

00:58:01.099 --> 00:58:03.780
and so what we expect to see is we'll see load back

00:58:03.780 --> 00:58:09.440
up in the 70's, 73,000 range next week. And renewables

00:58:09.449 --> 00:58:12.860
wind is expected to be higher in the next seven days.

00:58:12.869 --> 00:58:16.960
Anywhere from the 9 to 16,000 megawatt range. And solar

00:58:16.960 --> 00:58:20.769
in the 5 to 7000 range. So we're expecting strong performance

00:58:20.769 --> 00:58:23.590
for them over the next seven days. They want to

00:58:23.590 --> 00:58:28.079
respond to Commissioner McAdams from the July open

00:58:28.079 --> 00:58:31.340
meeting where you inquired about solar installed capacity, we

00:58:31.340 --> 00:58:34.880
were just over 8000. And we actually saw a record on

00:58:34.880 --> 00:58:38.760
August 3rd in the noon hour where there was just over

00:58:38.760 --> 00:58:42.650
7000 megawatts of solar production on the system. So

00:58:42.650 --> 00:58:46.320
that was a record for ERCOT.

00:58:46.320 --> 00:58:49.170
So as I close out, I really want to reiterate to you

00:58:49.179 --> 00:58:51.559
our commitment ERCOT to operating the grid

00:58:51.559 --> 00:58:55.440
more conservatively so that we better serve both the

00:58:55.440 --> 00:58:58.750
businesses and people of Texas. Some of the things

00:58:58.750 --> 00:59:01.909
that we're doing in operating in that conservative

00:59:01.909 --> 00:59:05.010
manner. Of course, we're procuring more reserves on

00:59:05.010 --> 00:59:08.780
the system to have that energy available. And we're

00:59:08.780 --> 00:59:12.090
also bringing it online sooner to make sure we're

00:59:12.090 --> 00:59:15.409
balancing that supply and demand. We're also purchasing

00:59:15.409 --> 00:59:19.110
more reserve power on those days where we see the potential

00:59:19.110 --> 00:59:22.829
for high variability and in our forecast, meaning

00:59:22.840 --> 00:59:25.900
could we have higher demand than we expected or could

00:59:25.900 --> 00:59:30.219
we see lower output from our renewable fleet.

00:59:30.219 --> 00:59:32.610
As we look ahead, as we start to wrap up the summer

00:59:32.610 --> 00:59:35.179
we're going to continue to evaluate our ancillary services

00:59:35.179 --> 00:59:37.400
making sure that we're operating in a conservative

00:59:37.400 --> 00:59:40.659
manner. But we want to make sure we're procuring the

00:59:40.659 --> 00:59:44.760
appropriate amounts. And finally, while we don't ever

00:59:44.760 --> 00:59:48.139
expect to have to use it, right now what we're

00:59:48.139 --> 00:59:51.420
looking at is we want to make sure that we continue

00:59:51.420 --> 00:59:54.150
to remind people that we do have conservation in our

00:59:54.150 --> 00:59:57.130
toolkit if needed to ask Texans to help each other

00:59:57.130 --> 01:00:01.300
to keep the grid reliable. And as I close out, I commit

01:00:01.300 --> 01:00:04.849
to you that, personally we will work to keep you

01:00:04.849 --> 01:00:08.480
updated on condition changes or any outages that come

01:00:08.480 --> 01:00:11.360
about that you need to be made aware of. So if you have any

01:00:11.360 --> 01:00:16.280
questions.
As always appreciate you reminding everyone

01:00:16.280 --> 01:00:22.199
that we need to always have every tool in the toolbox

01:00:22.199 --> 01:00:27.500
available to keep the lights on. Did some quick

01:00:27.510 --> 01:00:32.929
quick math here. Love seeing the increase in solar

01:00:32.929 --> 01:00:40.090
capacity, especially the 770 megawatts. Presumably

01:00:40.090 --> 01:00:46.250
over peak, given the timing of solar, to 7000 generated

01:00:46.260 --> 01:00:50.139
7000 megawatts generated of 8000 installed capacity.

01:00:50.460 --> 01:00:52.670
That's correct. And that was actually over the noon

01:00:52.679 --> 01:00:55.239
hour. So a little bit earlier today, when we saw that.

01:00:56.170 --> 01:01:01.030
We'll take it, that's 88%, I'm at 88% of installed

01:01:01.030 --> 01:01:05.840
capacity performing. This week. And just for context

01:01:05.849 --> 01:01:10.030
this week you said we had the 4-6,000 range and wind.

01:01:10.599 --> 01:01:15.400
That's 22% of installed capacity of the 27,000 performing

01:01:15.400 --> 01:01:21.639
And with an increase in thermal outages to 9000

01:01:21.639 --> 01:01:25.969
megawatts, I think this week.
We were in the 7000 range.

01:01:25.980 --> 01:01:29.300
Okay, so that's about,  of the 76,000 we've got

01:01:29.300 --> 01:01:34.420
installed, that thermal fleet is about 90% of installed

01:01:34.420 --> 01:01:38.530
capacity. So interesting to see solar and thermal

01:01:39.260 --> 01:01:41.889
neck and neck, and we'll certainly look forward to some

01:01:41.889 --> 01:01:45.440
more wind generation next week.
I was gonna ask a question

01:01:45.440 --> 01:01:50.059
If you don't want mind. And that is, I'm interested in

01:01:50.070 --> 01:01:54.079
in the wind profile and transmission congestion issue

01:01:54.090 --> 01:01:59.849
and that is are there, do we know or I know

01:01:59.849 --> 01:02:02.949
you know, but where the transmission constraints are

01:02:02.960 --> 01:02:06.530
that may allow a large increase in additional wind

01:02:06.530 --> 01:02:10.730
generation to come into ERCOT. They may be

01:02:10.730 --> 01:02:14.000
part of the CREZ lines or obviously you have to back

01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:16.099
off generation if you have transmission congestion

01:02:16.099 --> 01:02:18.800
So do we know what that number could be, if we solve

01:02:18.800 --> 01:02:22.880
the congestion, how much additional wind capacity or

01:02:22.880 --> 01:02:25.519
energy would be able to reach the system when on peak

01:02:25.900 --> 01:02:28.400
day.
Sure. I'm gonna have to follow up on that

01:02:28.400 --> 01:02:31.800
one for you because I don't want to misquote the potential

01:02:31.800 --> 01:02:35.429
numbers.
Right, thank you.
Thoughts, comments?

01:02:36.500 --> 01:02:43.500
Christie in future, we knew that as per the SER, last

01:02:43.500 --> 01:02:46.500
one, that we were looking for some more battery implements

01:02:46.510 --> 01:02:49.010
this summer now that we're in the heart of the peak.

01:02:49.019 --> 01:02:53.980
Moving towards that eight, you know, hours of late

01:02:53.980 --> 01:02:58.389
august, early september. Can you bring me what the new

01:02:58.389 --> 01:03:01.849
installed battery capacity is? Might be interesting

01:03:01.860 --> 01:03:08.090
to sort of line that up with the solar deployment

01:03:08.099 --> 01:03:12.460
as they come online and increase.
Could I add

01:03:12.460 --> 01:03:16.480
something to that?
Yes sir.
Maybe the duration of the

01:03:16.480 --> 01:03:20.579
batteries. It can either be categorized as short

01:03:20.579 --> 01:03:23.579
medium or long term. We may not have long term yet

01:03:23.590 --> 01:03:27.320
or you all can categorize it anyway, but it's interesting

01:03:27.320 --> 01:03:30.690
It would be interesting to me to know how long we have

01:03:30.699 --> 01:03:34.559
that energy coming out of those quick start units,

01:03:34.559 --> 01:03:39.099
those batteries for reliability purposes.

01:03:39.099 --> 01:03:43.599
That's an important factor.

01:03:43.599 --> 01:03:47.000
Anything else for?

01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:51.400
Thank you very much.

01:03:51.400 --> 01:03:56.239
I don't have anything for 23 or 24.

01:03:56.250 --> 01:04:00.690
I think it's just to item 25, please, Mr. Journay.
Item 25

01:04:00.699 --> 01:04:05.730
is Docket  50745. It's the application of Lakeside

01:04:05.739 --> 01:04:09.670
MUD number three and Manville Watch Black Corporation

01:04:09.670 --> 01:04:15.210
to decertify some area of proposed order that

01:04:15.210 --> 01:04:19.510
would remove a 230 acre tract has been filed. I have

01:04:19.510 --> 01:04:23.690
a memorandum with proposed changes to that order.

01:04:23.690 --> 01:04:25.719
It's going to seem pretty straightforward to me. Any

01:04:26.489 --> 01:04:32.000
questions, comments? Is there a motion

01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:35.889
to adopt the proposed order?
All in favor say aye.

01:04:35.889 --> 01:04:39.690
Motion passes

01:04:39.690 --> 01:04:45.389
Brings us to item 29

01:04:45.389 --> 01:04:50.679
29 is docket 51738. Petition of Sanctuary Texas

01:04:50.690 --> 01:04:57.079
to mend AquaTexas CCN by expedited release. The Commission

01:04:57.079 --> 01:05:00.579
previously approved this petition, the motion for rehearing

01:05:00.579 --> 01:05:04.699
has filed, matter is before you today, simply asking you

01:05:04.710 --> 01:05:08.260
to extend time to act on the motion for rehearing

01:05:08.260 --> 01:05:11.489
to the maximum extent allowable.
That's fine for me

01:05:11.489 --> 01:05:14.900
Does that work for y'all? All right. Is there a motion to extend

01:05:14.900 --> 01:05:16.599
the time for the commission to act on the petition

01:05:17.389 --> 01:05:22.369
to the maximum time allowed by law?
So moved.
Seconded.
All in favor,

01:05:22.369 --> 01:05:28.269
say aye. The motion passes. Item 30 was consented.

01:05:28.269 --> 01:05:33.989
Item 31, I don't have anything for. Item 32

01:05:34.230 --> 01:05:37.829
Mr. Journay?
Item 32. We have before you the minutes of the

01:05:37.829 --> 01:05:40.280
Commissioner's meetings that were held on July 1

01:05:40.280 --> 01:05:43.989
and July 26 for your approval.

01:05:43.989 --> 01:05:47.780
Thank you, sir. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes from the

01:05:47.780 --> 01:05:52.280
July 1 and July 26, 2021 meetings?
So moved.
Second.
All

01:05:52.280 --> 01:05:57.960
in favor say aye. The motion passes. Item 33

01:05:57.969 --> 01:06:01.130
related to our rulemaking calendar. We have any questions

01:06:01.130 --> 01:06:05.280
for Mr Smelter on the rulemaking calendar?

01:06:05.280 --> 01:06:10.190
Not at this time.
Okay, keep moving right along. I

01:06:10.190 --> 01:06:13.880
don't have anything for 33 or 34.

01:06:13.880 --> 01:06:23.679
Yeah, brings us to Items 35. Mr Journay.

01:06:23.679 --> 01:06:30.210
This is a project dealing with the rulemaking for electronic

01:06:30.219 --> 01:06:33.030
filings, I was told,

01:06:33.030 --> 01:06:38.050
Thomas (indistinct)
Commissioner

01:06:38.050 --> 01:06:40.000
as you know, we've implemented electronic filing

01:06:40.480 --> 01:06:43.219
and it's a practice that we want to continue. We're

01:06:43.219 --> 01:06:45.650
gonna have a draft for you soon. We've, you know, we

01:06:45.650 --> 01:06:49.059
took Chairman Lake's direction seriously to explore

01:06:49.059 --> 01:06:52.010
it for additional rulemaking efficiencies. So we're

01:06:52.010 --> 01:06:55.170
going to be expanding to a few different areas which

01:06:55.179 --> 01:06:56.900
I can go over, but I don't want to take over, take

01:06:56.900 --> 01:06:58.820
too much of your time. But I think Thomas wanted to

01:06:58.829 --> 01:07:02.170
address the topic also.
So I just wanted to let parties

01:07:02.170 --> 01:07:05.190
know that even though the governor's order allowing

01:07:05.190 --> 01:07:08.440
us to kind of exempt ourselves from our own rules expires

01:07:08.440 --> 01:07:11.409
on September 1, I've instructed central records to

01:07:11.409 --> 01:07:14.789
continue accepting electronic filings. I don't, you

01:07:14.789 --> 01:07:17.400
know, we were a late adopters, an agency going to electronic

01:07:17.400 --> 01:07:19.590
filings, I don't want to go backwards. So I've told

01:07:19.590 --> 01:07:22.710
them and would ask parties to continue to file electronically

01:07:24.679 --> 01:07:27.460
Certainly want to continue streamlining

01:07:27.460 --> 01:07:36.179
processes and optimizing operation. Thank you.

01:07:36.179 --> 01:07:40.760
I think that brings us to item 37, update on agency

01:07:40.760 --> 01:07:44.429
activities. Turn it over to you.
Thank you. Chairman

01:07:44.429 --> 01:07:46.989
Commissioners, so this is the item we will bring

01:07:46.989 --> 01:07:50.139
up the sunset self-evaluation before I turn over to Tom

01:07:50.150 --> 01:07:53.800
for that. Just two items of note. One is two weeks

01:07:53.800 --> 01:07:57.190
ago we held our first electric supply chain security

01:07:57.190 --> 01:07:59.860
and mapping committee meeting. It was very good meeting

01:07:59.869 --> 01:08:03.309
We named project leads for the six different projects

01:08:03.309 --> 01:08:06.039
that we've identified coming out of the statute related

01:08:06.039 --> 01:08:09.639
to that committee. And we also set up project teams

01:08:09.650 --> 01:08:12.769
and I know there's been some discussion about how we're

01:08:12.769 --> 01:08:15.559
going to inform the public and parties about what's

01:08:15.559 --> 01:08:18.189
going on. So what I'm going to propose to the committee

01:08:18.189 --> 01:08:20.590
at the next meeting which will be in two weeks, two

01:08:20.590 --> 01:08:23.369
weeks from tomorrow is that we publish the meeting

01:08:23.369 --> 01:08:25.600
minutes and we've opened a project here to do that

01:08:25.869 --> 01:08:29.689
and that I've asked the project leads to turn over

01:08:29.689 --> 01:08:32.720
progress reports every two weeks and will also be publicizing

01:08:32.720 --> 01:08:35.560
those as well. So that's how people at least initially

01:08:35.569 --> 01:08:37.899
will be informed as to what the committee is doing

01:08:38.270 --> 01:08:42.300
Excellent. Thank you.
And the second thing is on staffing

01:08:42.310 --> 01:08:45.649
at the PUC. As you know during the session, we received

01:08:45.659 --> 01:08:49.579
a number of additional new resources and I committed

01:08:49.590 --> 01:08:51.840
during my testimony in the session to go ahead and

01:08:51.840 --> 01:08:55.399
start hiring those positions early if we were afforded

01:08:55.399 --> 01:08:57.819
the opportunity to get them going into the next fiscal

01:08:57.819 --> 01:09:01.229
year, and I'm happy to report that between June and

01:09:01.229 --> 01:09:04.989
today we've hired roughly 20 new people on staff and

01:09:04.989 --> 01:09:07.170
so we're well on our way to fulfilling that commitment

01:09:07.170 --> 01:09:09.909
that we made during the session.
Much needed and welcome

01:09:09.909 --> 01:09:12.739
addition.
Definitely.
Glad to have these folks on board

01:09:12.750 --> 01:09:16.270
Absolutely. And now as we've talked about before the

01:09:16.270 --> 01:09:18.439
self evaluation report for the Sunset Commission is

01:09:18.449 --> 01:09:22.359
due September 1st. Tom Hunter who is our executive council

01:09:22.680 --> 01:09:25.250
is the primary lead on that project. So I'll turn over

01:09:25.250 --> 01:09:29.149
to him.
Morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Yes here today

01:09:29.149 --> 01:09:32.079
to present the draft self evaluation report for your

01:09:32.079 --> 01:09:34.930
consideration. It is the first step in a lengthy sunset

01:09:34.930 --> 01:09:38.079
process which will culminate in the legislative session

01:09:38.079 --> 01:09:42.439
in 2025. We provided a draft last week. I apologize

01:09:42.439 --> 01:09:44.409
for the length of that report on the limited time I

01:09:44.409 --> 01:09:47.460
gave you to review it. We were also had a

01:09:47.460 --> 01:09:49.369
limited time to prepare this report because we were

01:09:49.369 --> 01:09:56.069
moved up from Sunset 25 from 23 as you know. So yes

01:09:56.069 --> 01:10:00.390
it will be considered in 2023, sorry, wrong day. We

01:10:00.390 --> 01:10:03.649
must submit that on September 1. And we're asking

01:10:03.649 --> 01:10:06.550
today for your approval of the draft report and to

01:10:06.550 --> 01:10:09.729
allow us to continue to make non substantive edits as

01:10:09.729 --> 01:10:13.060
well as some additional edits too, for accuracy and

01:10:13.060 --> 01:10:15.720
content. We're still working on it. So we like that

01:10:15.729 --> 01:10:19.439
delegation to do that. I'd also like to take this

01:10:19.439 --> 01:10:22.510
opportunity to thank publicly those at least some

01:10:22.510 --> 01:10:25.439
of those who helped me, I don't have time to to thank

01:10:25.439 --> 01:10:27.970
everyone, had lots of help on this report. Very very

01:10:27.970 --> 01:10:31.250
lengthy, but like in particular to mention Christine

01:10:31.250 --> 01:10:34.020
Abbott, J Stone, and Keith Rogers who I leaned on particularly

01:10:34.020 --> 01:10:37.189
hard to help me get this done. But in no way

01:10:37.189 --> 01:10:39.250
diminishes the help I got from many, many others, so

01:10:39.250 --> 01:10:42.100
I wanted to thank them publicly for that. Be happy

01:10:42.100 --> 01:10:44.939
to answer any questions.
Thanks Tom and we will echo. I'm sure

01:10:44.939 --> 01:10:47.010
the entire commission echoes that gratitude to the

01:10:47.020 --> 01:10:51.310
hard work of our staff. This is a substantial and yet

01:10:51.310 --> 01:10:54.489
another accelerated project.

01:10:54.489 --> 01:10:58.619
Any questions or comments for Tom on Sunset draft report?

01:10:59.369 --> 01:11:02.680
I would just ask since I haven't read the draft yet

01:11:03.159 --> 01:11:05.319
still drinking out of a fire hose a little bit

01:11:05.319 --> 01:11:08.239
here. When do you want comments back, if you want comments?

01:11:08.239 --> 01:11:11.029
Well as soon as possible. Again we're still drafting

01:11:11.029 --> 01:11:12.640
and we'd be happy to come by and talk to you all

01:11:12.640 --> 01:11:15.279
individually if you have questions or want to talk

01:11:15.279 --> 01:11:18.100
about it were available from now until September 1st

01:11:18.109 --> 01:11:21.329
but it has to be filed at Sunset, electronically

01:11:21.329 --> 01:11:24.729
on September 1. 
And then I would add kind of as

01:11:24.729 --> 01:11:27.149
we're fleshing out additional aspects of this we'll

01:11:27.149 --> 01:11:29.340
walk down the hall and explain any of the changes made.

01:11:29.340 --> 01:11:32.220
Additionally, we're gonna go over ERCOT has a self

01:11:32.220 --> 01:11:35.050
evaluation report due as well. They're going to present

01:11:35.050 --> 01:11:37.710
that to staff for our discussion and then we'll come

01:11:37.710 --> 01:11:40.119
down and brief all of you on the contents of the report

01:11:40.119 --> 01:11:45.840
as well.
Thanks. I'm sure you can get an enhanced

01:11:45.840 --> 01:11:49.560
briefing to get you up to speed as soon as I

01:11:49.569 --> 01:11:52.699
do have one request for the draft change and

01:11:52.699 --> 01:11:57.890
the list of commissioners I keep showing up with Austin

01:11:57.890 --> 01:11:59.920
as my hometown. I'd like to clarify that was born and

01:11:59.920 --> 01:12:05.649
raised in Tyler. Please have that addressed.
Noted.
Thank you.

01:12:05.649 --> 01:12:10.159
Where do you live?
My heart is always in Tyler

01:12:10.159 --> 01:12:20.800
I want mine clarified too.

01:12:20.800 --> 01:12:25.430
For the win.
Yes. I would appreciate a

01:12:25.439 --> 01:12:29.270
post at a briefing before as well. I'll look at to

01:12:29.270 --> 01:12:31.689
see where I'm listed.

01:12:31.689 --> 01:12:35.800
They did the same thing to you.
Oh my goodness.
They did that to me

01:12:35.800 --> 01:12:37.989
at my confirmation. I'm from Cedar Park and they kept

01:12:37.989 --> 01:12:44.430
on saying Austin. A big difference. A whole other town.

01:12:44.430 --> 01:12:46.829
All due respect. We're gonna change it to Alpine first.

01:12:46.840 --> 01:12:50.739
We're going to do that one first.

01:12:50.739 --> 01:12:54.899
Do we, Thomas, I might have asked you this before but

01:12:54.909 --> 01:12:57.960
I've read a lot and thought a lot since then. Do we

01:12:57.960 --> 01:13:00.819
know when we're gonna get paired up with our sunset

01:13:00.829 --> 01:13:05.340
people. 
We don't. Initially during the session, I

01:13:05.340 --> 01:13:08.029
was told that we would be at the front end of the

01:13:08.029 --> 01:13:11.630
review cycle and I've since been informed that we're

01:13:11.630 --> 01:13:13.489
probably gonna be towards the back end because--
--we won't

01:13:13.489 --> 01:13:16.579
even know until we get closer to the back end cycle.

01:13:16.590 --> 01:13:19.289
Potentially depending on their resource allocation.

01:13:19.289 --> 01:13:22.069
They may end up taking some folks that are working

01:13:22.069 --> 01:13:24.159
on other projects on the front end and then move them

01:13:24.159 --> 01:13:31.149
to us. So, yeah, we don't know yet.

01:13:31.149 --> 01:13:34.670
No more questions.

01:13:34.670 --> 01:13:38.369
Covers item 37. I don't have anything for 38 or

01:13:38.369 --> 01:13:44.319
39 unless you have anything. I think that will lead us to

01:13:44.329 --> 01:13:48.420
to our closed session for the day. So having convened

01:13:49.229 --> 01:13:52.729
in a duly noticed open meeting, commission

01:13:52.729 --> 01:13:55.810
will now at 10:45 AM on August 19 hold a closed

01:13:55.819 --> 01:13:58.010
session, pursuant to chapter 501 of the Texas Government

01:13:58.010 --> 01:14:06.640
code, Section 551.071, 551.074 and 551.076.

01:14:06.640 --> 01:45:23.390
Thank you. We'll be back soon.

01:45:23.390 --> 01:45:26.619
Alright, closed session is hereby concluded at 11:17

01:45:26.619 --> 01:45:30.449
AM on August 19, 2021 the commission will resume its

01:45:30.449 --> 01:45:33.810
public meeting. No action was taken during closed session

01:45:35.289 --> 01:45:38.489
At this point, having no further business, this meeting

01:45:38.500 --> 01:45:41.699
of the public utility commission of texas is hereby

01:45:41.699 --> 01:45:43.310
adjourned.