Good morning, this meeting of the Public Utility Commission
Texas will come to order to consider matters that have
been duly posted with the Secretary of State of Texas
for August 19, 2021. For the record, my name is Peter
Lake with me today is Will MCAdams, Lori Cobos,
and for the first time in an open meeting, Jimmy Glotfelty.
Welcome, Jimmy. Glad to have you. Thank you for the
pause Mr. Smeltzer.
Yeah, Glotfelty Booster Club President, David Smelter
Mr. Journay, could you please walk us through the consent
items on today's agenda. Good morning, Commissioners.
By individual ballot, the following items were placed on the Consent Agenda. 6, 8, 14, 15,
16, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 36. Is there a motion
to approve the consent items just described by Mr Journay?
So moved. Seconded All in favor say aye. Alright, Mr Chairman
Through a misunderstanding, I had the told Y'all that
item 35 was not going to be taken up today, but we
do need to take that.
All right.
Okay. Thank you sir. The motion to approve the consent
agenda passes. At this point, we'll open for public comment.
Oral comments related to a specific agenda item will
be heard when that item is taken up. This public
comment period is for general comments, speakers will
be limited to three minutes each. Mr Journay, do we
have any one from the public signed up to speak? No
one signed up on our sign in sheet, sir. Thank you sir
This point, Public comment is closed. We will
be taking up item 35 but not item seven today. That's
correct. Alright, brings us to item number one.
Could you lay this out for us, Mr. Journay?
Item 1 is Docket 51244. It's the application
of Monarch by Windsor for an alternative method of
allocating billing for HVAC consumption. Corrected
proposed order was filed on July 2. I have a memo
with proposed changes to the order.
Thank you sir. In this case it seems to be pretty
straightforward, third party acting directly for
the owner. Any thoughts, comments?
So yeah, I think just on the ordering paragraph number
two. I think it's important to reflect as much notice
on the new cost allocation as possible and therefore
a 90 day notice requirement, I think that should be
reflected. Notice requirement would not renew
lease agreements? No, sir. That was something that came
up in discussion. I don't know if it's new business
go through that, but just 90 days notice before that
can be implemented? Yes. For existing customers and but
for new customers it should be reflected. In the lease agreement.
Yes, in the new lease agreement. That's right. They
should read. All right, fairly straightforward. Is there
a motion to adopt the corrected proposed order with
the proposed change to ordering paragraph number two
and the changes recommended in commission counsel's memo?
All in favor say aye. Alright, motion passes. Item
number two please.
Item 2 is Docket 51301, it's the application of TMNP to
amend their CCN for a 138 transmission line in Galveston
county. Proposed order was filed June 29. That would
amend TMNP CCN for that line based on the agreement
of the party. Corrections were proposed in the
ALJ filed correction memo on July 20. Commission considered
this at 29th open meeting and requested information.
Some of that has been submitted. We filed a memo
requesting parties attend this meeting for additional
information. I think last time we discussed this, everything
seemed to be in order except that two habitable structures.
Will, I know you had some concerns about that? Yes sir
And I'd still like to ask party some questions about
it. Bottom line is the marathon letter clarifying
that they will not be condemned and that it's following
an existing distribution easement. Still a transmission
line and distribution easement is coming really close to
a house and yeah. Uh huh. I'm a layman. I'm not an
engineer. But is that safe? And you know, National Electric
Code, clearly which is in our rules as the basis for the safety
measures. So are we in compliance there? So yeah, I'd
like to ask parties some questions. Alright. If parties would approach please.
Good morning. Stephanie Sparks on behalf of TMNP
I think that I have with me Chris Gary from
TMNP and John Wooten from HDR And I think that we can answer
some of those questions regarding the proximity of
the line to the habitable structures. Yeah, you heard
my comments, logic kind of shows which direction I'm
headed. Can you sort of speak to proximity of the line
to the structures? Why does it not necessitate condemnation
and the safety aspects of that? Yeah. So the line does comply
with the National Electric safety code or for the line
that will be built, will comply with the National Electric
Safety code in terms of horizontal clearances to habitable
structures. And then in addition, you know, the
transmission line itself will be taller than the existing
distribution line and it will essentially follow the
same center line of that wire over the top of
it. What's the linear feet from that wire to the structure
itself? The linear feet from the wire to the structure
itself appears to be horizontally, roughly 15 ft.
It's close. Talking about, when you say Larry, like vertical axis?
Horizontal axis or the I find this through that triangle?
Right, So-- Okay, I'm talking about the horizontal distance
So that house itself roughly would be 15 or so feet
tall and our line will be at the bottom of it sag
45 ft. Now, this location is much closer to a structure
So I think it will be, it will be somewhat higher than
that but 45 ft at a minimum at the middle of our
sag. Whereas the existing distribution line Is something
around the neighborhood of 30 ft off the ground.
Your experience in this. I mean I kind of did this
for a living... 15ft close but you know, I think in the
space we followed the national electric safety code and you
know if you're within the clearance then you're
within the clearance. I guess my question is what about
you may be horizontally 15 ft, does that take into
consideration any wind or anything that might blow
that line? I know it's an industrial area so there's not
a huge amount of wind like you'd be dealing with in
west Texas, but that would blow that 15-foot closer
to the home. Yes. So the minimum National Electric
safety code, horizontal clearances in the neighborhood
eight ft so that 15 ft would accommodate both the
blow out of our wire itself as well as the required
horizontal clearance.
Okay. And on notice to the inhabitants, what have
we done so far, what have they received? I can speak
to that. So for our for the CCN docket we sent them
notice via direct mail and then also published it in
the newspaper that gets regular circulation there. For
HDR for the public meeting before we even filed the
docket they sent notices via mail and I think it was just mail. That's
correct. Okay. And can you be confirm did they attend
the public meeting? These two inhabitants. Not saying
it's required or anything like that, just for more of
a curiosity. They did not sign into the public meeting
We also did not receive any phone calls after the notice
was provided.
And I will say the public meetings held in person and
online.
So there's been absolutely no contact with the
the individuals that live in the structures? Correct
We have not been in contact with people who live in that home.
Other than sending them to the notices. Two separate attempts and
one public meeting. Right. And there is presumably
notice filed for the public meeting locally. Yeah
Do you all do notice for public meetings in the newspaper
or just the direct mail? Believe we did direct mailers.
But then for the CCN there was a newspaper notice.
Okay.
Okay. And so you're complying with the code. You
are in a hurricane area, prone area. And in terms of
that line stretching out there, you're complying with
national safety code standards for that area of weather
and otherwise.
Okay, that's close. Any other comments? Yeah, I guess
my comment is it just seems I know citing transmission
lines is hard, especially over long distances. This
isn't really that long of a distance. There are only
two structures. It would seem like it would have been
easy to go knock on the door and I know you're following
the letter of the responsibility by the postings and
such. But sometimes we need to go out of our way to
address consumers directly that may impact their
habitable structures or as we call them homes.
So it seems to me that there should have been an actual
effort. There aren't many, there are just two, so I think
in my experience we would have done that, we would have
gone and knocked on their door.
Some counsel for future efforts perhaps.
Okay. Thank you. Any other...?
All right. So at this point we consider approving the
proposed order.
Is everybody good with the same rounds we discussed
GC7 & CC2 Yes. All right. Adequately
addresses the other issues
that have come up. In that case, I'll entertain a motion
to adopt the corrected proposed order with the changes
recommended in commission counsels memo and approve
routes GC7 & CC2. So moved. Second. All
in favor say aye. Motion passes, thank you.
Item #3, please, sir. Item #3 is Docket
51776. It's a joint application of E-tech and Rayburn country
to transfer a transmission line. There is a proposed
order filed on June 15, and I have a memo with proposed
corrections today.
This seems pretty straight forward. Any thoughts or
comments on this one.
All right. Is there a motion to adopt the proposed
order with changes from commission counsel? So moved. Seconded.
All in favor say aye. Motion passes. Item #4
please, sir. Item four is docket 51912, application
IAP Texas to amend a CCN for a 345 transmission line
Proposed order was filed on July 30 with ALJ filed a
correction memo on August 10. The order would implement
an agreement of the parties and approve route ISR
for this transmission.
This is an interesting one. We've got an agreed
upon route that's $20 million dollars more expensive
than other routes recommended and considered. Oh,
I know there's
The fact that there's a settlement seems to be the
on this seems to be about the only highlight. I
know there's some considerations for the properties
involved and wildlife considerations. For $20 million
dollars for the ratepayers to bear is above and beyond
what several other acceptable routes seems extraordinary
Thoughts?
I agree, Chairman Lake. You know, ERCOT deemed this project
is critical for reliability and we are very focused
on addressing transmission issues in the Corpus Rio
Grande Valley area and but as you look at the settlement
agreement, it is based on a route that is 20, about
$20 million dollars more. And there are at least four
other cheaper alternatives. And so, you know, I think
there's got to be a balance here and I think the settlement
agreement, it sounds like a lot of their main reasons
There was a settlement agreement based on aesthetics
of the routing and so that alone, I don't think it
is sufficient to warrant, you know, the more expensive
line. However, I would like to strike a balance between
addressing this issue and finding a more least cost
transmission routes. But I'd like to hear from AEP
if we remand this case back to further evaluate the
other four routes, what the impact will be on the
end service date of the line. That to me, that's a
good point. I am extremely uncomfortable with cost
on this proposed settled route and the arguments used
to justify it, introduction of non native grasses,
That kind of thing. Now, that does not warrant in my
mind, cost overruns of this magnitude. 40% cost increase
A bunch of a bunch of roads on the property. Well
used roads, lots of facilities on the property, all
sorts of vehicles coming and going. No way. So I agree
with Commissioner Cobos, but we need to look at the timeliness
of energizing that line. So is there a representative
here from AEP?
Yes, Commissioner Everbread for AEP Texas. Obviously
if it's, the line is not approved today, you know
there would be a delay, and when we start construction
but as we've told staff because this was a question
staff had, it's acceptable.
Okay, so it's acceptable, in that, I mean, what is it
gonna do to the December end service date? Well, I
guess it really depends on how quickly the case resolves
If we can reach another agreement in the next couple
of months. That certainly helps. If, if we do need
to do a fully contested case, you know, where we don't
get approval by this October, there could be a month
by month delay.
Basically however long it takes for us to get through
the process, fair enough. And this,
this is an important reliability project in a part
of the state that need as much help as it can get
in terms of additional transmission. So what sounds
like the most expedient way for this to get resolved
is for, I don't hear a lot of enthusiasm for a $40%
$20 million dollar increase, regardless of how desperately
this is needed. So I think the fastest way to
get this done would be for the parties to find a reasonable
settlement and that doesn't cost the ratepayers an extraordinary
amount of money for aesthetics and
native crafts concern. I think this is an important
case, especially right now as we talk about reliability
and we're signaling that we're interested in expediting
as many of these lines as possible, especially in that
part of the world. But if we're gonna be held over
the barrel as a commission where the ratepayers are
on the hook, you know, writing blank checks in these
settlements is not the way to go. It's not at any cost.
There's got to be a balance between reliability and
cost and we are very much focused in that area. But
I think Commissioner McAdams has sort of alluded to
We can't just put, you can't just move these projects
through on settlements that are significantly higher
costs and cheaper alternatives in case we got to get
the utilities to come up with reasonable settlements
and reasonable proposed routes that not only help us
ensure reliability in those critical areas of the state
but also take into consideration the cost of the ratepayers
will be paying at the end of the day. So that's it
I would recommend remanding it back to
For further evidence, further review of the four routes.
Agreed. Can I just say one thing? Obviously, the
one thing that I would be worried about is the
timeframe of a new route in process since there's so
much economic development for that county tied to that
in terms of a big steel plant, big plants like
that obviously have a huge impact on county school
taxes. Such that I wouldn't want any new proposed settlement
to delay that and have how to officially say, well,
we're going somewhere else because of it. And I would
hope that the parties could come to an agreement quickly
so that we can make sure that that is not an
outcome. It seems like the routes, there
are a finite number of routes here that have been studied
and agreeing to another one might be fairly quick and that's gonna
be helpful. Yeah, I would encourage the parties to
use all the tools at their disposal to come up with
this settlement quickly. And I think any parties listening
get a sense of this commission's concerned for aesthetics
and native grasses versus reliability. So with that
we'll entertain a motion to remand the docket back to SOAH
for a hearing on the merits with instructions
to get the best route with a settlement that does not
cost $20 million dollars more than any other routes. Is
there a motion? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor say aye.
Motion passes. Thank you very much. Number five
Please, Mr Journay Item 5 is docket 51958. It's a petition of MineAll
for an assessment of minimum use utility provider
charges as dwelling unit facing charges. A proposal
for decision was issued that recommends dismissal of
the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
We have a call back to our first item for
today where we got the same third party vendor. We
don't have clear documentation of representation of
an owner like we did with Windsor. I think everything
makes sense in this but we've as a 3rd party acting
on behalf of the owner. But I need to see, in my
mind, we need to see that ownership, thoughts? Right.
There'sm I think there's two ways of approaching this
case. One is, you know, remanding it back and get any
evidence in the record as to whether my MineAll the
authorized representatives and information regarding
to the ordinances and the charges by the city of
Frisco and Waco and other items related to this case
to help us make a decision. But the other option that
I think we should consider is just dismissing this
case for lack of prosecution. The commission staff
filed a motion to dismiss. There was order number two
was issued
and it required MineAll to respond on or before May 27
And we haven't heard anything from MineAll since this
case got filed in late March. And here we are with
a lot of work on our plate and we
haven't heard anything from them since they filed the petition
and they didn't even respond to the motion to dismiss
So I think in some ways we can remand it back and
get the evidence in the record or we could just dismiss
the case altogether and send a signal to parties that
if you're gonna file petition and have us look at
your information in the middle of all the work we've
got going on and you should at least be responding
back to orders that are issues requesting for a motion
Just to confirm. They did not. They didn't reply to
the motion dismissed by the May 27 date or since then
at all? They haven't filed anything in the record since
March 31.
That's a very good point, Commissioner Cobos. Staff
time, doesn't, isn't at the disposal of 3rd party
vendors. Thoughts? I mean it's true, this service is an object
lesson either way. We are dealing with more aggregated
models where folks try to bundle bring in and
so we either use this as an opportunity to establish
a template or either way, as you say commissioner
it's an object lesson, you know,
we could dismiss. What do you think? Yeah, I prefer not to have every
single owner coming here. I don't want to deter 3rd
parties from doing this, but I think there's a legal
way to assign responsibility and then come in here
after the aggregate. They need to, they need to show that
they are interested in this rather than an initial
filing. I would be supportive of a dismissal motion
as well. We like, we like having 3rd party vendors
process this for us instead of having to each
on their own. But as we and it works well like we
saw an item one with the same vendor but in this case
they need to be responsive. Staff time doesn't come
for free. But either way folks watching this decision
know that on the front end you need to file some sort
of, you know, evidence that you are in fact representing
these parties. Yeah, you can't just show up asking
for a decision or an order without having a basis
in the real world. Is there a motion to dismiss?
So moved. Second? All in favor say aye. Motion passes.
This brings us to item number nine, Mr. Journay.
So item nine is what I fondly now call little ERCOT
As opposed to big ERCOT. I didn't like
the Mary and the Nancy names I heard people throwing
around. I don't know that we have, we have no paper
on this item. I don't know anything to do on it. Well
I have recused myself from both item nine and 10 so
I'll step away and turn it over to Will.
Chair calls up, Item number 10, docket number 52322
Application for the electrical reliability council
of texas inc for a debt obligation order to finance
uplift balances under PURA Chapter 39, sub chapter
M for an order initiating a parallel docket for a
good cause exception.
Okay, so
having kind of talked through this with staff
I think we have a situation
where we need to take a step by step approach to this
It's a large substantive issue. And I think today
what we should consider is whether there should be
a parallel proceeding and the reason is because
of the nature of the filings, the substance of the
law and then the process is incumbent on it.
So I think practically speaking it may be impossible
to deal with everything under just this docket. So
my feeling is that we should segregate docket number
52322 into two proceedings for the purposes
of organization and being able to house all the comments
versus the verification on the types of
parties.
Comments? I agree with you, Commissioner McAdams. I
think we do need a home for some of the other important
ancillary issues that may be addressed in this case
and having a separate proceeding which I think has
already been opened under 52364 at least for the LSC
opt out that could be used as a home to address
other matters that need to be addressed in this case
that we don't have time to address within the short procedural
schedule. In any case. I agree. Well, I think the
process issues we need to get resolved. That kind
of sets the tone for the entire case. The verification
and quantification of who is in what bucket would be
better served in a separate location. Great now to decide if
we do move forward on a separate proceeding what
specifically is that to be used for? So are we
somewhat of a mind to use that again as a repository
for documentation of exposure to those costs and
then and then also documentation for the opt outs.
Yes, I mean ideally we had more time. The documentation
for exposure. Most I think would be better served in
in the case we're dealing with now but we just don't
have that procedural schedule flexibility to address
it in there. So I think that's the appropriate home
Okay. I'm gonna agree with that. Okay. As far as
the issues that should be decided in this docket
but again not today rather than in the parallel proceeding
what do we think about the process for documenting
exposure? Including deadlines and documentation that
is required? Would you think that that should go
in this docket?
I think because we need to run it in parallel we need
to consider studying the procedural schedule for all the
documentation.
Probably in this docket. I agree. I think what documentation
is necessary, setting out that that is important. Including
deadlines for opt out.
Yes because the other cases is sort of just a repository
Right? And this one has, is more of a-- This is the active
action. Exactly. Okay, good. Now also under this
one, the process for allocating funding in the amount
of eligible charges that exceeds the 2.1 billion. So
appropriation, the allocation.
Development of a process and methodology for prorations
essentially. Okay, I'm taking through it.
in terms of those other issues that are certainly
subject to comments filed, testimony filed, I
believe we don't necessarily have to take those up
today or discuss those, we will make any decisions on them
today since I believe the testimony next week and
the cross examination by parties. I do still think
it would be enlightening to hear those before any
final determination is made. But I welcome any thoughts
I agree with you. I think we would all benefit from
reading the rebuttal testimony and also carrying the
live testimony and cross examination in the hearing
next week. It's critically important that we listen next week.
Me too. All right. With that Mr Journey, you've
heard the discussion. What else do we need procedurally
to set the table for next month? So just to recount
the commission believes a parallel proceeding is necessary
and it's going to be used as a repository for documentation
and to basically allow us determine who opt out and
what is the final number of exposure. But we're going
in this docket next week in our decision after that
is developed the process for exposure. The process
for opt out and the process for allocating if we exceed
the two. And all that feeds into an ultimate open meeting
for any final cleanup decisions of September 23. Is
that procedurally accurate? I think that's the meeting
that we can, we're going to have to go to law parties
sometimes for post hearing briefs, we can't get to
the first meeting in September. That gives a meeting
to make your decision as to have enough direction to
get an order finalized and bring to you at the October
7 for adoption so that we meet our October 14 deadline.
Acceptable to me. Commissioner Cobos? Yes, I think that's...
I think all the other details in the parallel proceeding
we can leave to the judge to work out some
whatever timelines they're based upon what the commission's
decision is in this docket and then after the hearing next
week, the commission can set dates for
briefing and whatever else we need to do at that time
In terms of any action item today, I think you recapped
our thoughts well, so I don't think we need to take
any further action at this time. Subject to next week's
hearing.
I mean, it probably would be beneficial for the commission
to go ahead and entertain a motion and adopt this discussion
of the parallel proceeding and the issues that they're
going to punch out of this docket into that proceeding's.
All right. The chair would entertain a motion to memorialize
the comments on proceedings for a process regarding
docket number 52322 and securitization at this time.
So moved. Seconded. All those in favor-- Commissioner
may I ask one clarification. Ronn Moss, Attorney for
ERCOT, we have our rebuttal testimony due tomorrow
and one of the issues that we will be responding to
are party's assertions that ERCOT should be the one
that provides the information to document the exposure.
Our position is going to be that we don't have all
that information that's needed. That this is going
to be the LSEs are going to have to provide a good
amount of that information. What I'm trying to understand
is what do we still need to address that issue or is
this something that was going to put over in the parallel
docket? So having discussed this with staff, that is
one of the topics that I'll be interested in in terms
of the testimony next week as well as cross examination
of parties to determine what the arguments are. Again
we don't know what we don't know. So we're bringing
forward facts as we sort of go along here and I think
it's important for ERCOT to be able to respond to
market participants who assert that you do have the
data and to what degree you have it and therefore that
will help play into our mind on what we need to verify
these numbers. Then we will go into that rebuttal testimony
I have one question in terms of volumes of data that
you don't think you have, is it, I mean ERCOT is
obviously the clearinghouse for settlement structure
we have in ERCOT for every transaction. What types
of things do you think you don't have? Well, I'm not
the expert here, we'll have Mr Ogleman and Mr Taylor
here next week to discuss that but I can tell you that
for example, we don't have insight into the particular
relationships between the QSEs and the LSEs
And we don't for example if the commission were
to say there should be netting, we certainly don't
have the transparency into the relationships that an
individual QSE or LSE or whoever might have as between
the amount that they receive and the amount that they're
doing. So there's there's lots of holes that would
need to be filled with that and I'd have to anything
beyond that level, I have to defer to Mr Ogleman and Mr Taylor
Thank you. So really just to come back, Will. I may
wait for but for right now It's a question of to degrees as
to the data that market holds. So you do have basic
market clearing data, which you have as as the function
of the market administrator. Yes, but it's that QSE
and beyond relationship that you don't have visibility
on. So for our perspective, it becomes that question
of to what degree of the netting that would be considered
should we go in that direction? That's part of it.
I think it's beyond just the netting though. I think
there's also some other relationships there. We don't
we don't financially interact with LSEs, we don't
financially interact with resource entities and so there
may be some contractual relationships between QSEs
and LSEs that we don't really have any visibility
into, but again, I'm getting out beyond what I'm--
Look forward to next week. Thanks sir.
Mr Journay, you need anything else from us? No sir, I'm
just trying to get someone start drafting that order. Mr Chairman?
I think I'll remand it back over to you, sir.
(chatter)
Moves us to item number 11. I don't have anything for 11
through 13. Do y'all? Mr Chairman on 11, if we could.
As an opportunity for discussion. Absolutely.
In terms of our workshop last week in our
both discussion and intended instruction to staff and
what to rework, I wanted to bring up the effective
dates on whatever we're looking just to direct their
timelines. For our procedures or the implementation?
Well both really, sir, just the mechanics of it and what
we envisioned. Because this will determine how
quickly industry needs to set the work trying to come
up to that standard of the 2011 standard. So we said
December 1. Was that for the effective date of
the rule or publication in your mind? How soon do we
need to-- I think what I took away from the conversation
last week was we want to publish the rule, Phase one
If you will, before we get to the more robust post
weather report or the post weather study, Phase two.
But for Phase one we want to publish the,
go through the accelerated rulemaking process to get
that out and formalized as soon as possible with the
intention that for Phase 1, 2011, 2011 standards plus
mitigating specific issues that went wrong or malfunctions
disruptions, et cetera from the 2021 event. Those two
items be repaired, be addressed, mitigated and resolved
And those standards put in place by December 1, in
preparation for this winter, I think we could, we would
we would want some sort of documentation and of course
if there were issues, if for what, some reason a particular
issue had not been addressed,
need to know a plan to address it, why it hasn't been
addressed by that point in time and a plan to address
it or mitigate it and that was what my understanding
was with this discussion. So we have to meet the statutory
deadline, and that's statutory deadline of December 1
we would be, we would move to have the phase one, whether
these contenders in place, but now as we have sort of
a very defined role based on our discussion and in our direction
from the workshop and as the chairman just described, we should
be able to get something out as soon as possible that
provides direction to the stakeholder community on
what the generators and the TSP's and what they need
to do to be able to comply with that Phase one set
of standards which are based on addressing acute
problems that were identified from the 2021 winter
storm coming up to standard on 2021 and attesting to
that and if there are issues in a meeting, those
two standards based on supply chain issues or any other
issues to let us know in their attestation and provide
us with the timeline as to when they expect to address
them and to keep us posted. So regular schedule. Just to
recap what I'm hearing from a functional project
management timeline, effective date December 1,
2021. Implementation of the rule will
be published before the statutory deadline of November
30 or December 1. That's right. Okay. So the rule timetable
would be as fast as possible. Exactly. So we're gonna
get-- ---can help us clarify a few points. Thank
you
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Barksdale
English on behalf of commission staff. I think there's
there's three important deadlines to be thinking about
The first and most important is the statutory requirement
that the rule be adopted so that folks have to implement
those rules by December 1. The second is the actual
date of adoption under the administrative procedures
act, you have to adopt the rule at least 20 days before
that first date, that effective date. And then backing
up before that is the day when you published your draft
rule, which we are looking to do next week. So that's
kind of the three milestones I think you need
to think about procedurally. So it's tight and so those
are the procedural milestones and then the,
if the compliance deadline on the part of industry
lines up with the, and I'm sorry, legislative, I just
keep thinking effective dates whenever the law is the
law. With that ultimate effective date for enforcement
so that you go out and start checking. Do we want
that to be sort of the alignment or do they need a
grace period to come into compliance because there's
all these skilled tradesmen. And now delta variant
is impacting that skilled tradesmen population, things
like that. So kinda why I asked. I think there's
probably two paths that you can take here. One is you
can be explicit in the rule and provide an offramp
good cause exception, something of that nature. And
then the attestation and remediation strategy can bring
yourself up to the rules standards. Yes. I think
We need to be hard up front. We need to say--
You gotta have it. Yeah can't beat the dog ate my homework
We expect it to be done by December 1
If it's not we'll consider-- --extenuating circumstances
They couldn't get the equipment that they were going
to put them on or supply chain issues. There
are workforce issues that they are very legitimate--
Specific issues like a letter from a supplier explaining
90 day backorder for, not just its busy right now. Exactly.
So an attestation with what they're going, what they're
doing to come up to 2011, 2021 issues and then if there
are extenuating circumstances provide documents, another
attestation or the same attestation with supporting
documentation and a timeline as to when you're going
to address how that issue address and if you don't
have on, then circle back and let us know when
you do, keep us posted because it just can't be an
open-- Can I ask a general question in the
dokcet, and that is we are, we being citizens of
the state, are obviously stunned by what happened in
February. Weatherization standards and I think
the statute is even more general than just saying winter
weather, there's summer weather also, and we've done
a lot in our obviously summer peaks, we do a lot to
try to ensure that our plants are weatherized but have
we looked at what are their summer weather rising things
that need to happen that may be a part of this rule
as well? Just as kind of a general
sense. In phase two. Absolutely, it will be in all seasons
rule. For phase one. We were hearing the acute need
to address the upcoming winter and I'm sure that whatever
issues we may have experienced last winter have at
least been thought about and and work is being done
on it. Perfect. Yeah, this, this is, this new timeline
has been driven by, Commissioner Cobos made a very good point
that we don't want to build, looking for the cart before
the horse and that we don't want to make Phase two
rules, robust weatherization rules before we have the
weather study and analysis that they're supposed to
be based on. But more importantly, we want to make
sure our generator fleet is in better shape and more
resilient going into this winter than it was last winter
And so, this phased approach is a way to both, first
and foremost to prepare ourselves, our fleet for the
winter. So Texas is in better shape. And also of
course fulfill the statutory deadline for having rules
in place. And I think we've got a good
sense on what the standard in Phase one needs to
be 2011, broadly and then acute problems resolved from
2021 event.
So I think looking at the calendar, Will, you know
you said, correctly said that the schedule is tight on
all of these things. Possibly we're looking for
staff to have a proposal for publication next Thursday
the 26th. And if that's approved, then we would
have, we could do an accelerated public comment period.
Staff's normal processes to provide 30 days for public
comment, but I think the commission can choose to shorten
the timeline if it feels like it's in the public interest.
Can we achieve your no later than day for all this
without an expedited comment? Well, the, I think
we can get the rule adopted and effective but what we're
doing is we're making it a very short time period from
the moment in which the rule becomes effective to the
moment the generators and transmission service providers
have to implement the rule. Do we need to make that
decision today to give, to give everybody-- --I don't
know that we need to make it today, but I think the
variable here is, do we we do the full 30 days, we've
got to respond to comments, which is a big unknown
but that's required by law, and then depending on
how long that takes, how much, what time frame do the
generators have to implement the final rule? We are
hoping of course that they are not waiting on us that
they are taking industry prudent actions to weatherize
before. Maybe a few modifications if we have
changes to that, but they are already well into that
process. We would certainly hope so. So we don't
need to decide this today, but I would put it out there
for consideration that given the extensive
stakeholder input this commission has engaged in with
workshops, staff at the staff level has been beyond
robust. I would be comfortable shortening the public
comment period.
Because of the extensive stakeholder engagement
we've just made in shortening it to 10, 15 days
but we don't have to figure that out today
but something to think about again with the notion
that we want to give these, give the generators time
they need to implement anything that they haven't already
undertaken in good faith. So that at the end of the
day we can have a Texas fleet in as good a shape
as possible for December 1. What's our maximum flexibility
on an expedited comment period? What tools do we have
in the toolbox? Can we set anything or are we constrained
by Texas Administrative Code and or statute?
I'll have to defer to a lawyer on interpretation of
theEPA. Mr Smelter?
David Smelter, commission staff. Uh, no, you're,
there's no specific minimum standard. I think the rule
of thumb that we use is that the absolute minimum we
would ever give on a comment period, we try never
to go below 10 calendar days because that's sort of
a week and a half to read and think about and produce a thoughtful
response. On this, speaking to what Barksdale said,
I think we have it built in to where there is still
a couple of open meetings for your consideration at
the back end. If we move quickly and this will be sort
of an all hands on deck to get the comments summarized
So, you know, the full 30 days would be rough with
expedited schedule, but you know, well, we'll think
more about it and we'll have a pitch for that along
with the draft next week. I had in my head maybe
about three weeks, maybe we can go down to 2.5 or two
but we'll have some well thought out periods as part
of the PFP proposal for you next week. That would be
great to have some options of how we can move forward
procedurally for next week's work sessions would be
great. I think another thing to consider as we're talking
about publishing a proposal for publication and the
comments that would be filed in response to that PFD
whether reply comments are required. Commissioner, I
think our view was under this expedited timeframe.
We had not built in a reply comment because there
was such robust discussion. I hesitate to say it
out loud, but if any party has urgent issues, every
PFP comes with the ability to request a hearing, which
if we had to do, we would do like two or three
days after the comment period and we could receive
oral responses. So we're always hopeful not to do
that because it's time consuming, but it is a sort
of escape hatch for critical issues if necessary.
I was wondering because before you have that short
comment period there was a way that we can kind of
trim it down, but it sounds like your expedited
comment period's already taking account one round of
comments. I think you have a third tool as well and
that's to limit the number of pages
and perhaps a fourth tool to make Thomas sharpen his pencil
so he has to write comment summaries as well.
Yeah. It sounds like we have another executive session
in the future. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We've
got some things to, thank you, Mr Smelter. We've
got some things to think about on that. Any other questions
for, anything else. No, sir. Thank you, appreciate the
conversation. Thank you for the hard work on an ever
accelerating timeline.
We'll try to accelerate more next week.
All right. That covers item 11. I don't have anything
for 12 or 13. Several of the next items were consented
That brings us to item 17. Lay that out for us, Mr Journay.
Item 17 is project 52307. Before you is a proposed
order that would approve 16 rules of ERCOT included
No protocols, protocol operating guides, planning guides,
resource registration, glossary, providing documents
system changes, retail market guide and the associated
market impact statements. Commission staff filed a recommendation
over approval of all groups.
I'm sure you have all seen the memo from staff
and there been plenty of robust discussions about many
of these rules. I don't have any thoughts or comments.
from y'all? I do not. I'm sorry. I forgot to
tell you. Staff provided a proposed order
that would improve all these rules.
Very good point. Thank you.
Is there a motion to approve the calendar year 2021
rules previously adopted by the independent organization
and the proposed order? So moved Second. All in favor say aye.
Motion passes. Item 18
please, sir. Item 18 is Project 52312. It's a rule on the
administrative penalties. We have no paper on this.
Pretty straightforward.
Questions, comments?
All right. Is there a motion to issue the proposal
for publication? So moved.
I don't know that we have one.
I read one. Did you? All right. Well, I'm behind the curve.
Yeah, I mean Andy will, David Smelter, commission staff.
Andy will be checking in real time right now, but
I'm pretty sure we filed one.
Yeah. Can hide million dollars in a lot of places.
I also looked at the wrong number. I just wanted to
show Barksdale that weatherization rule could be done
quickly and efficiently. So, this one is extreme.
Wow. And after lunch we will have the commission
staff cage match. All right. Is there
a motion to issue the proposal for publication?
All in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr Smelter.
I don't have anything on 19 through 21.
Alright, brings us to 22, update on ERCOT. We have
Christine Hobson and Shane Thomas here to provide the Commissioner
COVID update
All right. Good morning, Commissioners Christie Hobbs
for the record. Vice president of Corporate Strategy
and PUC relations for ERCOT. Thank you for having
me here this morning. As you're well aware, we're
well into our summer operations. And so I'd like to
take this opportunity just to give you some updates
on what we've been seeing from a demand perspective
the performance of our renewable generation fleet as
well as outage updates on the thermal generation
aspect. So I'd like to kind of start off by taking
a look back at last week. And what we experienced during
the weekdays, what we saw was both demand and our wind
output was a little bit higher. But as we got to
the end of the week, as we started experiencing showers
over the region, we did see both of those start to
decline. The peak demand ranged in the 70 to
73,000 megawatt range throughout the week. We saw the
peak on Monday
of last week. From a renewable perspective, we actually
saw wind at or above our seasonal expectations for
most of the week. Each of those peak times during
the weekday and we experienced a high of 18,700 MW
on Tuesday. So 27,000 MW installed? Yes, we're just
over 26,000 close to 27. Was that just wind? That was
just the wind, just wind at the 18,000 range. What
we saw was solar last week was in the 4 to 5000
megawatt range. And that was really because we saw
showers impacting in the West Texas region, where
we have a lot of solar capability. From an aggregate
thermal outage perspective, we saw those in the range
of 5 to 6000 megawatts. And it got somewhat lower
as we went through the week, getting to the weekend
so this week, to date, what we've seen is, you
know, we continue to see sufficient generation to meet
demand. Peak demand has actually been a little bit
lower than what we forecasted. And as you can imagine
in this world where we're operating a lot more conservatively,
we've seen the potential for showers in our forecast
but we can't depend on those showers to show up. So
what you can affect seeing as demand's actually coming
in a little bit lower than what we had forecasted earlier
in the week. And actually that we've seen that
we saw high on Monday around 68,000, Tuesday drop down
to 60, yesterday, we were back up to 63,000. So
for this time of season, definitely lower than the demand.
From a renewable perspective, we've continued to see
wind in the 4-6,000 range this week, but it has started
picking up, got back up to 13,000 yesterday. And as
we look ahead to next week, we're starting to see that
increase as well from wind performance.
Is that, what are the general hours for those peak times?
Those are at peak times. Those numbers. Yes sir.
The solar performance this week. Again in the
4000 range as we've seen those showers across the region
The thermal generation outages have this week been
up a little bit from last week. We're seeing those
in the 7000 range. What we're seeing some
of those incremental outages, taking the opportunity
to prepare issues so that it can be back online
next week because as we look at next week, Hurricane
Grace through the end of this week is gonna, shouldn't
impact the region. We're expecting drier conditions
and so what we expect to see is we'll see load back
up in the 70's, 73,000 range next week. And renewables
wind is expected to be higher in the next seven days.
Anywhere from the 9 to 16,000 megawatt range. And solar
in the 5 to 7000 range. So we're expecting strong performance
for them over the next seven days. They want to
respond to Commissioner McAdams from the July open
meeting where you inquired about solar installed capacity, we
were just over 8000. And we actually saw a record on
August 3rd in the noon hour where there was just over
7000 megawatts of solar production on the system. So
that was a record for ERCOT.
So as I close out, I really want to reiterate to you
our commitment ERCOT to operating the grid
more conservatively so that we better serve both the
businesses and people of Texas. Some of the things
that we're doing in operating in that conservative
manner. Of course, we're procuring more reserves on
the system to have that energy available. And we're
also bringing it online sooner to make sure we're
balancing that supply and demand. We're also purchasing
more reserve power on those days where we see the potential
for high variability and in our forecast, meaning
could we have higher demand than we expected or could
we see lower output from our renewable fleet.
As we look ahead, as we start to wrap up the summer
we're going to continue to evaluate our ancillary services
making sure that we're operating in a conservative
manner. But we want to make sure we're procuring the
appropriate amounts. And finally, while we don't ever
expect to have to use it, right now what we're
looking at is we want to make sure that we continue
to remind people that we do have conservation in our
toolkit if needed to ask Texans to help each other
to keep the grid reliable. And as I close out, I commit
to you that, personally we will work to keep you
updated on condition changes or any outages that come
about that you need to be made aware of. So if you have any
questions. As always appreciate you reminding everyone
that we need to always have every tool in the toolbox
available to keep the lights on. Did some quick
quick math here. Love seeing the increase in solar
capacity, especially the 770 megawatts. Presumably
over peak, given the timing of solar, to 7000 generated
7000 megawatts generated of 8000 installed capacity.
That's correct. And that was actually over the noon
hour. So a little bit earlier today, when we saw that.
We'll take it, that's 88%, I'm at 88% of installed
capacity performing. This week. And just for context
this week you said we had the 4-6,000 range and wind.
That's 22% of installed capacity of the 27,000 performing
And with an increase in thermal outages to 9000
megawatts, I think this week. We were in the 7000 range.
Okay, so that's about, of the 76,000 we've got
installed, that thermal fleet is about 90% of installed
capacity. So interesting to see solar and thermal
neck and neck, and we'll certainly look forward to some
more wind generation next week. I was gonna ask a question
If you don't want mind. And that is, I'm interested in
in the wind profile and transmission congestion issue
and that is are there, do we know or I know
you know, but where the transmission constraints are
that may allow a large increase in additional wind
generation to come into ERCOT. They may be
part of the CREZ lines or obviously you have to back
off generation if you have transmission congestion
So do we know what that number could be, if we solve
the congestion, how much additional wind capacity or
energy would be able to reach the system when on peak
day. Sure. I'm gonna have to follow up on that
one for you because I don't want to misquote the potential
numbers. Right, thank you. Thoughts, comments?
Christie in future, we knew that as per the SER, last
one, that we were looking for some more battery implements
this summer now that we're in the heart of the peak.
Moving towards that eight, you know, hours of late
august, early september. Can you bring me what the new
installed battery capacity is? Might be interesting
to sort of line that up with the solar deployment
as they come online and increase. Could I add
something to that? Yes sir. Maybe the duration of the
batteries. It can either be categorized as short
medium or long term. We may not have long term yet
or you all can categorize it anyway, but it's interesting
It would be interesting to me to know how long we have
that energy coming out of those quick start units,
those batteries for reliability purposes.
That's an important factor.
Anything else for?
Thank you very much.
I don't have anything for 23 or 24.
I think it's just to item 25, please, Mr. Journay. Item 25
is Docket 50745. It's the application of Lakeside
MUD number three and Manville Watch Black Corporation
to decertify some area of proposed order that
would remove a 230 acre tract has been filed. I have
a memorandum with proposed changes to that order.
It's going to seem pretty straightforward to me. Any
questions, comments? Is there a motion
to adopt the proposed order? All in favor say aye.
Motion passes
Brings us to item 29
29 is docket 51738. Petition of Sanctuary Texas
to mend AquaTexas CCN by expedited release. The Commission
previously approved this petition, the motion for rehearing
has filed, matter is before you today, simply asking you
to extend time to act on the motion for rehearing
to the maximum extent allowable. That's fine for me
Does that work for y'all? All right. Is there a motion to extend
the time for the commission to act on the petition
to the maximum time allowed by law? So moved. Seconded. All in favor,
say aye. The motion passes. Item 30 was consented.
Item 31, I don't have anything for. Item 32
Mr. Journay? Item 32. We have before you the minutes of the
Commissioner's meetings that were held on July 1
and July 26 for your approval.
Thank you, sir. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes from the
July 1 and July 26, 2021 meetings? So moved. Second. All
in favor say aye. The motion passes. Item 33
related to our rulemaking calendar. We have any questions
for Mr Smelter on the rulemaking calendar?
Not at this time. Okay, keep moving right along. I
don't have anything for 33 or 34.
Yeah, brings us to Items 35. Mr Journay.
This is a project dealing with the rulemaking for electronic
filings, I was told,
Thomas (indistinct) Commissioner
as you know, we've implemented electronic filing
and it's a practice that we want to continue. We're
gonna have a draft for you soon. We've, you know, we
took Chairman Lake's direction seriously to explore
it for additional rulemaking efficiencies. So we're
going to be expanding to a few different areas which
I can go over, but I don't want to take over, take
too much of your time. But I think Thomas wanted to
address the topic also. So I just wanted to let parties
know that even though the governor's order allowing
us to kind of exempt ourselves from our own rules expires
on September 1, I've instructed central records to
continue accepting electronic filings. I don't, you
know, we were a late adopters, an agency going to electronic
filings, I don't want to go backwards. So I've told
them and would ask parties to continue to file electronically
Certainly want to continue streamlining
processes and optimizing operation. Thank you.
I think that brings us to item 37, update on agency
activities. Turn it over to you. Thank you. Chairman
Commissioners, so this is the item we will bring
up the sunset self-evaluation before I turn over to Tom
for that. Just two items of note. One is two weeks
ago we held our first electric supply chain security
and mapping committee meeting. It was very good meeting
We named project leads for the six different projects
that we've identified coming out of the statute related
to that committee. And we also set up project teams
and I know there's been some discussion about how we're
going to inform the public and parties about what's
going on. So what I'm going to propose to the committee
at the next meeting which will be in two weeks, two
weeks from tomorrow is that we publish the meeting
minutes and we've opened a project here to do that
and that I've asked the project leads to turn over
progress reports every two weeks and will also be publicizing
those as well. So that's how people at least initially
will be informed as to what the committee is doing
Excellent. Thank you. And the second thing is on staffing
at the PUC. As you know during the session, we received
a number of additional new resources and I committed
during my testimony in the session to go ahead and
start hiring those positions early if we were afforded
the opportunity to get them going into the next fiscal
year, and I'm happy to report that between June and
today we've hired roughly 20 new people on staff and
so we're well on our way to fulfilling that commitment
that we made during the session. Much needed and welcome
addition. Definitely. Glad to have these folks on board
Absolutely. And now as we've talked about before the
self evaluation report for the Sunset Commission is
due September 1st. Tom Hunter who is our executive council
is the primary lead on that project. So I'll turn over
to him. Morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Yes here today
to present the draft self evaluation report for your
consideration. It is the first step in a lengthy sunset
process which will culminate in the legislative session
in 2025. We provided a draft last week. I apologize
for the length of that report on the limited time I
gave you to review it. We were also had a
limited time to prepare this report because we were
moved up from Sunset 25 from 23 as you know. So yes
it will be considered in 2023, sorry, wrong day. We
must submit that on September 1. And we're asking
today for your approval of the draft report and to
allow us to continue to make non substantive edits as
well as some additional edits too, for accuracy and
content. We're still working on it. So we like that
delegation to do that. I'd also like to take this
opportunity to thank publicly those at least some
of those who helped me, I don't have time to to thank
everyone, had lots of help on this report. Very very
lengthy, but like in particular to mention Christine
Abbott, J Stone, and Keith Rogers who I leaned on particularly
hard to help me get this done. But in no way
diminishes the help I got from many, many others, so
I wanted to thank them publicly for that. Be happy
to answer any questions. Thanks Tom and we will echo. I'm sure
the entire commission echoes that gratitude to the
hard work of our staff. This is a substantial and yet
another accelerated project.
Any questions or comments for Tom on Sunset draft report?
I would just ask since I haven't read the draft yet
still drinking out of a fire hose a little bit
here. When do you want comments back, if you want comments?
Well as soon as possible. Again we're still drafting
and we'd be happy to come by and talk to you all
individually if you have questions or want to talk
about it were available from now until September 1st
but it has to be filed at Sunset, electronically
on September 1. And then I would add kind of as
we're fleshing out additional aspects of this we'll
walk down the hall and explain any of the changes made.
Additionally, we're gonna go over ERCOT has a self
evaluation report due as well. They're going to present
that to staff for our discussion and then we'll come
down and brief all of you on the contents of the report
as well. Thanks. I'm sure you can get an enhanced
briefing to get you up to speed as soon as I
do have one request for the draft change and
the list of commissioners I keep showing up with Austin
as my hometown. I'd like to clarify that was born and
raised in Tyler. Please have that addressed. Noted. Thank you.
Where do you live? My heart is always in Tyler
I want mine clarified too.
For the win. Yes. I would appreciate a
post at a briefing before as well. I'll look at to
see where I'm listed.
They did the same thing to you. Oh my goodness. They did that to me
at my confirmation. I'm from Cedar Park and they kept
on saying Austin. A big difference. A whole other town.
All due respect. We're gonna change it to Alpine first.
We're going to do that one first.
Do we, Thomas, I might have asked you this before but
I've read a lot and thought a lot since then. Do we
know when we're gonna get paired up with our sunset
people. We don't. Initially during the session, I
was told that we would be at the front end of the
review cycle and I've since been informed that we're
probably gonna be towards the back end because-- --we won't
even know until we get closer to the back end cycle.
Potentially depending on their resource allocation.
They may end up taking some folks that are working
on other projects on the front end and then move them
to us. So, yeah, we don't know yet.
No more questions.
Covers item 37. I don't have anything for 38 or
39 unless you have anything. I think that will lead us to
to our closed session for the day. So having convened
in a duly noticed open meeting, commission
will now at 10:45 AM on August 19 hold a closed
session, pursuant to chapter 501 of the Texas Government
code, Section 551.071, 551.074 and 551.076.
Thank you. We'll be back soon.
Alright, closed session is hereby concluded at 11:17
AM on August 19, 2021 the commission will resume its
public meeting. No action was taken during closed session
At this point, having no further business, this meeting
of the public utility commission of texas is hereby
adjourned.