WEBVTT
00:00:00.400 --> 00:00:01.233
Hey.
00:00:02.693 --> 00:00:04.292
Let's go back on the record
00:00:04.292 --> 00:00:07.661
and the Commissioners have asked to
00:00:07.661 --> 00:00:11.911
have some additional
questions for ERCOT witnesses.
00:00:13.572 --> 00:00:15.238
So let's do that.
00:00:15.238 --> 00:00:16.477
And then just to give a heads up,
00:00:16.477 --> 00:00:19.021
we're gonna take after that's complete,
00:00:19.021 --> 00:00:21.339
we're going to take
one party out of order
00:00:21.339 --> 00:00:24.739
because Ms. Coleman had indicated that
00:00:24.739 --> 00:00:26.862
TIEC's witness, Mr. Griffey,
00:00:26.862 --> 00:00:29.048
had some unavailability tomorrow,
00:00:29.048 --> 00:00:31.262
and we agreed to accommodate that.
00:00:31.262 --> 00:00:33.489
When we're done with
the ERCOT witnesses,
00:00:33.489 --> 00:00:35.906
we're gonna proceed with TIEC
00:00:37.095 --> 00:00:40.255
this afternoon instead of tomorrow.
00:00:40.255 --> 00:00:41.384
Your honor,
do you want all three
00:00:41.384 --> 00:00:43.315
or some subset of that?
00:00:43.315 --> 00:00:44.467
What's your pleasure?
00:00:44.467 --> 00:00:45.714
Mr. Ogelman
00:00:45.714 --> 00:00:48.181
and Mr. Taylor for me.
00:01:06.746 --> 00:01:07.579
Good to go?
00:01:07.579 --> 00:01:08.412
Go.
00:01:08.412 --> 00:01:09.245
Yes, sir.
00:01:09.245 --> 00:01:11.745
Mr. Ogelman question to you.
00:01:12.717 --> 00:01:18.023
Given Ms. Lori
Simpson's testimony
00:01:18.023 --> 00:01:20.499
on the Exelon proposal,
00:01:20.499 --> 00:01:23.274
given ERCOT settlement extracts
00:01:23.274 --> 00:01:25.824
that you were able to listen to,
00:01:25.824 --> 00:01:29.319
a question as to the mechanics of that.
00:01:29.319 --> 00:01:34.013
I noticed ERCOT did not,
chose not to cross examine.
00:01:34.013 --> 00:01:36.346
Is that a feasible proposal?
00:01:37.413 --> 00:01:38.246
Yes.
00:01:38.246 --> 00:01:42.126
And as I stated in
my rebuttal testimony,
00:01:42.126 --> 00:01:45.221
that is a calculation that we can make.
00:01:45.221 --> 00:01:49.004
I think the outstanding
question will be,
00:01:49.004 --> 00:01:50.372
and ERCOT doesn't
take a position on this
00:01:50.372 --> 00:01:52.000
one way or the other,
00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:56.272
but does it meet your goals
of calculating exposure?
00:01:56.272 --> 00:01:57.105
Right.
00:01:57.105 --> 00:01:58.112
So next question.
00:01:58.112 --> 00:01:58.945
Given
00:01:59.954 --> 00:02:04.281
the two tracks possibly
on net versus not net,
00:02:04.281 --> 00:02:08.614
does netting live within
this proposal mechanically?
00:02:09.687 --> 00:02:12.854
Can you go and evaluate a net scenario
00:02:13.814 --> 00:02:18.647
within a verification system
as envisioned by Ms. Simpson?
00:02:20.835 --> 00:02:23.473
So this is also again,
kind of conditional,
00:02:23.473 --> 00:02:26.774
but there are circumstances under which
00:02:26.774 --> 00:02:30.541
there's some netting that
can happen under that,
00:02:30.541 --> 00:02:33.274
but there would be some
business arrangements
00:02:33.274 --> 00:02:36.884
where I don't know if I
would be netting or not.
00:02:36.884 --> 00:02:41.884
It just depends on the position
of the load serving entity
00:02:42.311 --> 00:02:43.561
within the QSE.
00:02:45.084 --> 00:02:47.324
So, I mean,
00:02:47.324 --> 00:02:51.525
Ms. Simpson is using
our settlement extracts.
00:02:51.525 --> 00:02:54.925
So if it were to capture
that through a trade
00:02:54.925 --> 00:02:57.034
or something like that,
00:02:57.034 --> 00:03:00.411
it's possible that we could net things.
00:03:00.411 --> 00:03:03.051
But I can't promise you that
00:03:03.051 --> 00:03:06.502
under all business arrangements,
everything gets netted.
00:03:06.502 --> 00:03:09.919
And again, netting
is kind of up to y'all
00:03:10.846 --> 00:03:13.846
to determine how that exactly works.
00:03:14.827 --> 00:03:15.660
Okay.
00:03:15.660 --> 00:03:16.493
That's my questions.
00:03:16.493 --> 00:03:17.326
Thank you.
00:03:18.494 --> 00:03:19.327
Anything?
00:03:20.341 --> 00:03:21.424
Is that it?
That's it.
00:03:21.424 --> 00:03:22.257
Thank you.
00:03:22.257 --> 00:03:23.090
Thank you both.
00:03:23.090 --> 00:03:23.923
Thank you.
00:03:23.923 --> 00:03:24.756
All right.
00:03:24.756 --> 00:03:26.041
And just so you all know
where we're headed,
00:03:26.041 --> 00:03:29.131
we're gonna get whatever
work we can get done
00:03:29.131 --> 00:03:30.696
between now and six o'clock.
00:03:30.696 --> 00:03:34.059
So we'll recess for the
night at six o'clock tonight.
00:03:34.059 --> 00:03:35.250
I just also
wanted to make clear
00:03:35.250 --> 00:03:37.316
that our witnesses will be here tomorrow
00:03:37.316 --> 00:03:38.290
in case the Commissioners
00:03:38.290 --> 00:03:39.481
have any follow-up questions.
00:03:39.481 --> 00:03:40.314
All right.
00:03:40.314 --> 00:03:41.147
Thank you.
00:03:41.147 --> 00:03:42.060
Thank you.
00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:42.893
TIEC.
00:04:03.859 --> 00:04:04.739
Mister, can
you state your name
00:04:04.739 --> 00:04:06.160
for the record please?
00:04:06.160 --> 00:04:07.603
Charles Griffey.
00:04:07.603 --> 00:04:09.643
Mr. Griffey, are
you the same Charles Griffey
00:04:09.643 --> 00:04:12.959
that offered direct
testimony in this docket?
00:04:12.959 --> 00:04:13.919
Yes.
00:04:13.919 --> 00:04:14.969
And in front of you,
00:04:14.969 --> 00:04:16.275
do you have what's been pre-marked
00:04:16.275 --> 00:04:19.301
and pre admitted as TIEC exhibit one?
00:04:19.301 --> 00:04:20.134
Yes.
00:04:20.134 --> 00:04:20.967
And do you recognize that
00:04:20.967 --> 00:04:23.005
to be your testimony in this docket?
00:04:23.005 --> 00:04:23.838
Yes, I do.
00:04:23.838 --> 00:04:25.627
And if you were asked
the same questions today,
00:04:25.627 --> 00:04:27.340
would your answers be the same?
00:04:27.340 --> 00:04:28.666
Yes.
00:04:28.666 --> 00:04:31.045
And we will offer
Mr. Griffey for cross.
00:04:31.045 --> 00:04:32.418
Thank you.
00:04:32.418 --> 00:04:34.045
Calpine.
00:04:34.045 --> 00:04:35.560
No questions, your honor.
00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:36.690
Coalition.
00:04:36.690 --> 00:04:37.721
No questions, your honor.
00:04:37.721 --> 00:04:38.905
174 Power.
00:04:38.905 --> 00:04:40.300
No questions, your honor.
00:04:40.300 --> 00:04:41.966
EDF.
00:04:41.966 --> 00:04:42.991
No questions, your honor.
00:04:42.991 --> 00:04:44.522
NG.
00:04:44.522 --> 00:04:45.782
No questions, your honor.
00:04:45.782 --> 00:04:47.056
Exelon.
00:04:47.056 --> 00:04:48.497
No questions, your honor.
00:04:48.497 --> 00:04:49.637
Just Energy.
00:04:49.637 --> 00:04:51.002
No questions, your honor.
00:04:51.002 --> 00:04:52.007
NRG.
00:04:52.007 --> 00:04:53.087
No questions, your honor.
00:04:53.087 --> 00:04:54.005
Rayburn.
00:04:54.005 --> 00:04:55.210
No questions, your honor.
00:04:55.210 --> 00:04:56.417
Tenaska.
00:04:56.417 --> 00:04:57.812
No questions, your honor.
00:04:57.812 --> 00:04:59.267
Texpo.
00:04:59.267 --> 00:05:00.872
No questions.
00:05:00.872 --> 00:05:02.972
TXU and Luminant?
00:05:02.972 --> 00:05:04.385
No questions, your honor.
00:05:04.385 --> 00:05:05.813
LCRA.
00:05:05.813 --> 00:05:07.404
No questions, your honor.
00:05:07.404 --> 00:05:08.456
East Texas.
00:05:08.456 --> 00:05:09.762
No questions, your honor.
00:05:09.762 --> 00:05:10.611
Golden Spread.
00:05:10.611 --> 00:05:11.745
No questions, your honor.
00:05:11.745 --> 00:05:12.578
South Texas.
00:05:12.578 --> 00:05:14.369
No questions, your honor.
00:05:14.369 --> 00:05:15.585
Austin.
00:05:15.585 --> 00:05:17.044
No questions.
00:05:17.044 --> 00:05:17.877
Lubbock.
00:05:17.877 --> 00:05:19.449
No questions.
00:05:19.449 --> 00:05:20.411
(indistinct)
00:05:20.411 --> 00:05:22.271
No questions, your honor.
00:05:22.271 --> 00:05:23.561
Let's see here.
00:05:23.561 --> 00:05:24.394
ERCOT?
00:05:24.394 --> 00:05:25.947
No questions, your honor.
00:05:25.947 --> 00:05:26.894
Staff.
00:05:26.894 --> 00:05:28.586
No questions, your honor.
00:05:28.586 --> 00:05:31.146
Well, somebody got shy
between yesterday and today.
00:05:31.146 --> 00:05:33.069
(all laugh)
00:05:33.069 --> 00:05:37.268
Commissioners, do you have
any questions for Mr. Griffey?
00:05:37.268 --> 00:05:39.273
I do not.
00:05:39.273 --> 00:05:40.569
You did a great
job, Mr. Griffey.
00:05:40.569 --> 00:05:43.901
(all laugh)
Universal acclaim.
00:05:43.901 --> 00:05:45.036
Everyone agrees with that.
00:05:45.036 --> 00:05:47.369
(all laugh)
00:05:55.426 --> 00:05:56.758
All right.
00:05:56.758 --> 00:05:59.008
That puts back on track for
00:06:05.858 --> 00:06:06.691
NRG.
00:06:08.276 --> 00:06:09.577
Yes, Ms. Stover?
Yes.
00:06:09.577 --> 00:06:11.335
Thank you, your honor.
00:06:11.335 --> 00:06:13.918
Andrea Stover on behalf of NRG.
00:06:14.963 --> 00:06:17.030
Mr. Barnes, can you state
your name for the record?
00:06:17.030 --> 00:06:18.095
Bill Barnes.
00:06:18.095 --> 00:06:19.515
And are you the same
witness that offered
00:06:19.515 --> 00:06:22.568
direct testimony on behalf
of NRG in this docket?
00:06:22.568 --> 00:06:23.667
I am.
00:06:23.667 --> 00:06:25.052
And you have in front of you
00:06:25.052 --> 00:06:27.615
what's been pre-marked
as NRG exhibit one.
00:06:27.615 --> 00:06:29.311
Is that the testimony you provided?
00:06:29.311 --> 00:06:30.285
It is.
00:06:30.285 --> 00:06:32.385
And if I asked you the
same questions today,
00:06:32.385 --> 00:06:34.320
would your answers be the same?
00:06:34.320 --> 00:06:35.153
They would be.
00:06:35.153 --> 00:06:37.617
(indistinct) witness.
00:06:37.617 --> 00:06:38.450
Thank you.
00:06:38.450 --> 00:06:39.626
Calpine.
00:06:39.626 --> 00:06:41.928
(indistinct)
00:06:41.928 --> 00:06:43.235
(Peter coughs)
00:06:43.235 --> 00:06:44.068
Coalition.
00:06:44.068 --> 00:06:46.338
(Peter ahems)
00:06:46.338 --> 00:06:47.800
No questions.
00:06:47.800 --> 00:06:49.389
174 Power.
00:06:49.389 --> 00:06:50.434
No questions, your honor.
00:06:50.434 --> 00:06:51.979
EDF.
00:06:51.979 --> 00:06:53.789
No questions, your honor.
00:06:53.789 --> 00:06:54.974
NG.
00:06:54.974 --> 00:06:57.373
No questions, your honor.
00:06:57.373 --> 00:06:58.206
Exelon.
00:06:59.764 --> 00:07:00.772
No questions.
00:07:00.772 --> 00:07:02.155
Just Energy.
00:07:02.155 --> 00:07:03.740
No questions.
00:07:03.740 --> 00:07:04.621
Rayburn.
00:07:04.621 --> 00:07:06.170
No questions, your honor.
00:07:06.170 --> 00:07:07.212
Tenaska.
00:07:07.212 --> 00:07:08.298
No questions, your honor.
00:07:08.298 --> 00:07:09.472
Texpo.
00:07:09.472 --> 00:07:10.438
No questions.
00:07:10.438 --> 00:07:11.580
TIEC.
00:07:11.580 --> 00:07:13.091
No, your honor.
00:07:13.091 --> 00:07:14.638
TXU and Luminant.
00:07:14.638 --> 00:07:16.270
No questions, your honor.
00:07:16.270 --> 00:07:17.103
LCRA.
00:07:17.103 --> 00:07:18.123
No, your honor.
00:07:18.123 --> 00:07:19.206
East Texas.
00:07:21.597 --> 00:07:23.315
East Texas.
00:07:23.315 --> 00:07:24.447
That sounds like a no.
00:07:24.447 --> 00:07:25.417
Golden Spread.
00:07:25.417 --> 00:07:26.639
No questions, your honor.
00:07:26.639 --> 00:07:27.772
South Texas.
00:07:27.772 --> 00:07:28.703
No questions.
00:07:28.703 --> 00:07:29.661
Austin.
00:07:29.661 --> 00:07:31.170
No questions, your honor.
00:07:31.170 --> 00:07:32.003
Lubbock.
00:07:32.003 --> 00:07:33.011
No questions.
00:07:33.011 --> 00:07:33.844
OPA.
00:07:33.844 --> 00:07:35.314
No questions, your honor.
00:07:35.314 --> 00:07:36.147
ERCOT.
00:07:36.147 --> 00:07:37.164
No questions, your honor.
00:07:37.164 --> 00:07:38.042
Staff.
00:07:38.042 --> 00:07:39.216
No questions, your honor.
00:07:39.216 --> 00:07:40.049
Wow.
00:07:40.049 --> 00:07:41.598
Commissioners.
00:07:41.598 --> 00:07:43.269
I just have one question.
00:07:43.269 --> 00:07:47.924
On page four of your
testimony on line 20, it talks,
00:07:47.924 --> 00:07:49.516
you suggested the
Commission should determine
00:07:49.516 --> 00:07:51.646
the types of costs
eligible for securitization
00:07:51.646 --> 00:07:52.777
in the proceeding.
00:07:52.777 --> 00:07:55.213
Can you give us examples
of some of those costs
00:07:55.213 --> 00:08:00.213
that you are thinking about
that that we should consider?
00:08:00.419 --> 00:08:01.252
Yes.
00:08:03.043 --> 00:08:08.043
Those costs have been discussed
at length today in terms of,
00:08:08.477 --> 00:08:11.640
obviously we know that
the categories of that,
00:08:11.640 --> 00:08:15.603
that this legislation is
required to cover with
00:08:15.603 --> 00:08:17.570
ancillary service costs above 9,000
00:08:17.570 --> 00:08:19.717
and the reliability of
deployment (indistinct).
00:08:19.717 --> 00:08:23.009
But the eligibility of
what should be included
00:08:23.009 --> 00:08:24.879
in terms of those costs
00:08:24.879 --> 00:08:29.879
and our strong view is that
there should be a rigid process
00:08:30.460 --> 00:08:32.859
to document or to verify
00:08:32.859 --> 00:08:37.152
which you've heard numerous
testimony on the need to have
00:08:37.152 --> 00:08:39.444
ERCOT data involved
so there is a credible,
00:08:39.444 --> 00:08:42.995
independent third party that
can validate that information.
00:08:42.995 --> 00:08:45.112
And so that's really
what we're focused on
00:08:45.112 --> 00:08:47.650
in that testimony we're referring to.
00:08:47.650 --> 00:08:48.483
But it is.
00:08:48.483 --> 00:08:50.448
So it's not really anything more than
00:08:50.448 --> 00:08:52.188
the big broad categories.
00:08:52.188 --> 00:08:53.021
That's correct.
00:08:53.021 --> 00:08:54.359
Okay. Okay.
00:08:54.359 --> 00:08:55.276
That's all.
00:08:59.305 --> 00:09:01.385
Just something
to kind of bring up.
00:09:01.385 --> 00:09:04.900
So in your testimony
(indistinct) where exactly,
00:09:04.900 --> 00:09:06.411
you have summary of it here.
00:09:06.411 --> 00:09:10.774
But you stated that a
determination of eligible costs
00:09:10.774 --> 00:09:15.058
should not occur until ERCOT
has finalized all resettlements
00:09:15.058 --> 00:09:17.702
related to the operating days
during the period of emergency
00:09:17.702 --> 00:09:19.428
so that the (indistinct)
have final amounts
00:09:19.428 --> 00:09:22.865
of eligible causes invoice for ERCOT.
00:09:22.865 --> 00:09:26.059
So basically until all disputes,
00:09:26.059 --> 00:09:30.476
including court proceedings
are completely completed,
00:09:31.456 --> 00:09:32.425
is that your position?
00:09:32.425 --> 00:09:34.605
We were, we are referring to
00:09:34.605 --> 00:09:37.738
for the operating days in question
00:09:37.738 --> 00:09:39.532
that's including the
period of emergency,
00:09:39.532 --> 00:09:44.046
there have been numerous
data calculation changes
00:09:44.046 --> 00:09:46.831
in terms of meter
data and resettlements,
00:09:46.831 --> 00:09:50.731
which have resulted in increased amounts
00:09:50.731 --> 00:09:52.664
and changes in settlement amounts,
00:09:52.664 --> 00:09:56.360
even with recent resettlements
that have occurred.
00:09:56.360 --> 00:09:58.619
And now that I believe
we've reached the true-up
00:09:58.619 --> 00:10:03.036
or will very soon pass the
true-up portion for these,
00:10:04.410 --> 00:10:07.431
I think those settlements
will start to kind of lock down.
00:10:07.431 --> 00:10:11.088
Now, there is certainly
prospect of additional disputes.
00:10:11.088 --> 00:10:14.921
I think ERCOT has
extended the dispute window.
00:10:15.760 --> 00:10:18.862
Those amounts could
change in the future,
00:10:18.862 --> 00:10:22.222
but we are really referring
to the known resettlements
00:10:22.222 --> 00:10:25.458
that have already been
approved to have that complete.
00:10:25.458 --> 00:10:27.682
We were certainly in
support of moving forward
00:10:27.682 --> 00:10:29.099
with this process
00:10:29.983 --> 00:10:31.444
and
00:10:31.444 --> 00:10:34.013
securing the distributions
as quickly as possible
00:10:34.013 --> 00:10:35.681
so that we can get that financial relief
00:10:35.681 --> 00:10:38.069
to support the wholesale market.
00:10:38.069 --> 00:10:40.218
So your reference to disputes
00:10:40.218 --> 00:10:42.314
was basically the
settlement speeds (indistinct).
00:10:42.314 --> 00:10:43.147
Correct.
00:10:43.147 --> 00:10:44.497
And the resettlements
that have occurred recently
00:10:44.497 --> 00:10:47.978
that those numbers should
be included in the final amounts.
00:10:47.978 --> 00:10:48.811
Okay. Thank you.
00:10:48.811 --> 00:10:49.894
Yep.
00:10:50.764 --> 00:10:51.597
Mr. Barnes,
00:10:51.597 --> 00:10:56.008
in regards to the Exelon
verification proposal,
00:10:56.008 --> 00:10:58.648
their metrics and evaluation, again,
00:10:58.648 --> 00:11:03.004
those data sets that
are publicly available
00:11:03.004 --> 00:11:04.671
and can be accessed.
00:11:06.994 --> 00:11:10.145
Do you believe, in your
view, in NRG's view,
00:11:10.145 --> 00:11:13.673
does that proposal hold
water in terms of a component
00:11:13.673 --> 00:11:15.424
of a verification process?
00:11:15.424 --> 00:11:18.034
Is that a workable solution?
00:11:18.034 --> 00:11:19.049
Now, just to be clear.
00:11:19.049 --> 00:11:21.456
Your question is about the use
00:11:21.456 --> 00:11:23.729
of ERCOT settlement extract data.
00:11:23.729 --> 00:11:24.562
Correct.
00:11:24.562 --> 00:11:27.426
To be the basis
for the information
00:11:27.426 --> 00:11:30.569
that's provided and are verified,
00:11:30.569 --> 00:11:33.611
not whether netting or no
netting is appropriate policy.
00:11:33.611 --> 00:11:34.444
That's correct.
00:11:34.444 --> 00:11:35.277
Okay.
00:11:35.277 --> 00:11:36.110
Yes.
00:11:36.110 --> 00:11:40.781
We believe that the
information that is available
00:11:40.781 --> 00:11:44.372
to market participants through
their settlement extracts,
00:11:44.372 --> 00:11:46.960
through their settlement statements,
00:11:46.960 --> 00:11:50.830
it can and should be the
basis for the computation
00:11:50.830 --> 00:11:54.357
of the amounts that
are eventually approved.
00:11:54.357 --> 00:11:56.376
And that I think that
works under a netting
00:11:56.376 --> 00:12:00.108
or a no netting scenario
that may require,
00:12:00.108 --> 00:12:02.538
as ERCOT has alluded
to in their testimony
00:12:02.538 --> 00:12:03.965
and rebuttal testimony,
00:12:03.965 --> 00:12:05.903
the market participant
may need to provide
00:12:05.903 --> 00:12:07.787
additional information to direct ERCOT
00:12:07.787 --> 00:12:10.516
in how to either net
that information together
00:12:10.516 --> 00:12:12.740
or pull it out if it's not netted.
00:12:12.740 --> 00:12:15.264
So it may require additional information
00:12:15.264 --> 00:12:16.646
provided by the market participant,
00:12:16.646 --> 00:12:20.040
so that ERCOT knows how to
do the math on their own data,
00:12:20.040 --> 00:12:21.336
that they charged us for.
00:12:21.336 --> 00:12:23.515
And that depends
on the level of complexity
00:12:23.515 --> 00:12:27.535
of the QSEs involved,
the breadth of their
00:12:27.535 --> 00:12:29.273
number of counterparties that they have?
00:12:29.273 --> 00:12:30.106
I think
00:12:30.947 --> 00:12:35.378
we have all come to
appreciate the complexity of how
00:12:35.378 --> 00:12:40.024
individual corporate
structures work and the impact
00:12:40.024 --> 00:12:44.423
of transactions across
affiliates and LACs.
00:12:44.423 --> 00:12:46.990
So yes, that would, I
think definitely require
00:12:46.990 --> 00:12:49.760
that information to be provided to ERCOT
00:12:49.760 --> 00:12:51.904
and that the data that
they have available
00:12:51.904 --> 00:12:56.412
to be able to use, to be
able to do those calculations
00:12:56.412 --> 00:12:57.458
should be available.
00:12:57.458 --> 00:13:00.441
But they would need
additional information to do so.
00:13:00.441 --> 00:13:01.608
Okay.
00:13:03.789 --> 00:13:05.372
Another question.
00:13:07.857 --> 00:13:11.493
You wrote in your
testimony, you discussed
00:13:12.976 --> 00:13:15.580
the number of true-up
proposals on an annual basis
00:13:15.580 --> 00:13:17.336
that ERCOT has proposed.
00:13:17.336 --> 00:13:21.477
Can you tell us what the
effect of more or less of those
00:13:21.477 --> 00:13:23.869
would be on a load serving entity?
00:13:23.869 --> 00:13:25.503
Yes.
00:13:25.503 --> 00:13:29.443
Our testimony touched
on two different things.
00:13:29.443 --> 00:13:33.667
One is the nature of the
structure of the uplift charge
00:13:33.667 --> 00:13:35.477
being on a volumetric basis
00:13:35.477 --> 00:13:38.727
and then the frequency of the true-ups.
00:13:39.966 --> 00:13:41.133
The complexity
00:13:43.352 --> 00:13:48.352
on the retail market is when
you have an amount or a fee
00:13:48.546 --> 00:13:50.713
that's changing frequently
00:13:51.614 --> 00:13:53.521
because we have to price and budget
00:13:53.521 --> 00:13:55.593
all those costs in, right?
00:13:55.593 --> 00:13:59.676
And so we understand
ERCOT's need to pursue a fee
00:14:00.992 --> 00:14:05.224
or pursue an amount or
a structure that's stable,
00:14:05.224 --> 00:14:08.932
that provides the
lowest cost for financing.
00:14:08.932 --> 00:14:12.265
However, that shifts risks onto the LACs
00:14:14.020 --> 00:14:16.915
because those amounts as they vary,
00:14:16.915 --> 00:14:19.567
and if they are subject
to frequent true-ups,
00:14:19.567 --> 00:14:22.821
that means we have to
price that risk in on our side.
00:14:22.821 --> 00:14:23.654
Right?
00:14:23.654 --> 00:14:27.076
So in our view, what's
ultimately the most important thing
00:14:27.076 --> 00:14:30.197
is what the end use customer sees
00:14:30.197 --> 00:14:33.061
in terms of their price, right?
00:14:33.061 --> 00:14:36.825
And so there's risk on ERCOT's side,
00:14:36.825 --> 00:14:39.074
which is why they proposed
the structure of the fee
00:14:39.074 --> 00:14:41.641
the way they did,
which is a fixed amount,
00:14:41.641 --> 00:14:43.677
and they wanna be
able to true that up, right?
00:14:43.677 --> 00:14:46.918
So they can show potential
investors in the bonds
00:14:46.918 --> 00:14:49.328
that there's a more
stable revenue stream
00:14:49.328 --> 00:14:51.623
coming back to them to get lower rates.
00:14:51.623 --> 00:14:54.289
But that shifts risks
to the retail market
00:14:54.289 --> 00:14:55.786
where now we have to figure out
00:14:55.786 --> 00:14:58.375
if that fee is gonna
change on a daily basis
00:14:58.375 --> 00:15:02.873
from 20 cents to 25 cents to
30 cents back down to 10 cents.
00:15:02.873 --> 00:15:03.706
Right?
00:15:03.706 --> 00:15:05.658
That has to be factored in and priced in
00:15:05.658 --> 00:15:08.354
for our retail contracts
that are forward-looking
00:15:08.354 --> 00:15:11.341
four months, six
months, a year out, right?
00:15:11.341 --> 00:15:12.921
So we will have to bake that risk in.
00:15:12.921 --> 00:15:14.294
Same with the true-up process.
00:15:14.294 --> 00:15:17.544
So we really looked at the admin fee as
00:15:19.080 --> 00:15:21.333
a model for how this could work,
00:15:21.333 --> 00:15:23.604
which is a budgeted amount
00:15:23.604 --> 00:15:26.069
that ERCOT has to
collect known in advance,
00:15:26.069 --> 00:15:30.569
a fee that's designed based
on forecasted load volumes
00:15:31.911 --> 00:15:33.860
and set at a specific amount,
00:15:33.860 --> 00:15:37.264
and is really only subject to true-up
00:15:37.264 --> 00:15:39.346
when the load values changed
00:15:39.346 --> 00:15:40.962
and they resettle like
they would normally do
00:15:40.962 --> 00:15:43.481
on an initial, final
and a true-up amount.
00:15:43.481 --> 00:15:45.148
So our preference is
00:15:46.528 --> 00:15:49.579
a structure, a fee
structure that is easier
00:15:49.579 --> 00:15:51.400
for market participants to predict
00:15:51.400 --> 00:15:54.462
so that we can price
that in an easier way
00:15:54.462 --> 00:15:57.398
and not have to pass
on risk onto consumers.
00:15:57.398 --> 00:15:59.879
And how
often would you predict
00:15:59.879 --> 00:16:01.548
or suggest a true-up?
00:16:01.548 --> 00:16:02.992
Would that be annually,
or every six months?
00:16:02.992 --> 00:16:05.952
(indistinct) annual true-up,
00:16:05.952 --> 00:16:08.656
and our recognizing ERCOT's
00:16:08.656 --> 00:16:11.955
concerns and need to have a stable fee,
00:16:11.955 --> 00:16:14.425
our recommendation
was that you could design
00:16:14.425 --> 00:16:18.442
a volumetric fee that
slightly over-collects
00:16:18.442 --> 00:16:22.618
so that you have a
surplus to really manage
00:16:22.618 --> 00:16:24.984
any potential variability
00:16:24.984 --> 00:16:27.642
and also manage any need to have to go
00:16:27.642 --> 00:16:30.890
and true-up or go
back and resettle things
00:16:30.890 --> 00:16:32.378
you could build a contingency,
00:16:32.378 --> 00:16:36.021
and that would be used
to keep that fee stable.
00:16:36.021 --> 00:16:38.586
We would basically
trade off predictability
00:16:38.586 --> 00:16:41.801
and a stable fee for a
slightly higher amount
00:16:41.801 --> 00:16:44.795
to make sure that we
had that buffer in there.
00:16:44.795 --> 00:16:47.178
But we think with that mechanism,
00:16:47.178 --> 00:16:50.595
with a potential conservative design
00:16:50.595 --> 00:16:54.286
then an annual true-up
should be sufficient.
00:16:54.286 --> 00:16:55.425
Thank you.
If there needs to be.
00:16:55.425 --> 00:16:58.625
And this may be an over
simplification, but okay.
00:16:58.625 --> 00:17:00.129
You suggested the annual.
00:17:00.129 --> 00:17:02.828
ERCOT's obviously looking
more granular process.
00:17:02.828 --> 00:17:05.697
But again, we have monthly
auctions on a lot of stuff
00:17:05.697 --> 00:17:09.123
that retail providers
have to take into account
00:17:09.123 --> 00:17:10.705
that sort of establishes that baseline
00:17:10.705 --> 00:17:12.297
as you're going through.
00:17:12.297 --> 00:17:14.478
And again, that would be on
00:17:14.478 --> 00:17:17.745
and that fluctuates on
a seasonal basis too.
00:17:17.745 --> 00:17:20.849
Again, those load volumes are gonna--
00:17:20.849 --> 00:17:21.682
Yep.
00:17:21.682 --> 00:17:22.517
Would that give you heartburn?
00:17:22.517 --> 00:17:23.350
We have...
00:17:23.350 --> 00:17:24.573
So.
00:17:24.573 --> 00:17:25.453
Good comparison here.
00:17:25.453 --> 00:17:28.062
There are a lot of
very variable products,
00:17:28.062 --> 00:17:29.229
variability of
00:17:30.894 --> 00:17:32.189
energy costs,
00:17:32.189 --> 00:17:37.189
variability of energy prices,
of congestion pricing as well.
00:17:37.214 --> 00:17:39.085
The difference is there were mechanisms
00:17:39.085 --> 00:17:40.302
to hedge those costs.
00:17:40.302 --> 00:17:44.173
Price of energy changes
every 15 minutes,
00:17:44.173 --> 00:17:47.358
price of congestion
changes every 15 minutes,
00:17:47.358 --> 00:17:51.214
but there is a well-formed
in developed bilateral market
00:17:51.214 --> 00:17:54.302
to hedge energy prices
on a forward basis,
00:17:54.302 --> 00:17:55.662
next day, next month,
00:17:55.662 --> 00:17:59.758
Valliere, you know, Colliers
and then seeing with CRRs.
00:17:59.758 --> 00:18:02.142
You can purchase and hedge CRRs monthly
00:18:02.142 --> 00:18:03.902
and in three-year auctions.
00:18:03.902 --> 00:18:06.238
So there's ability to hedge those in
00:18:06.238 --> 00:18:07.758
that have been developed
00:18:07.758 --> 00:18:09.529
and it's a fairly sophisticated
00:18:09.529 --> 00:18:10.894
and well-developed market to do that.
00:18:10.894 --> 00:18:13.902
For fees and charges
like this that are more,
00:18:13.902 --> 00:18:18.030
we consider a kind of
uplift, it's cost to serve load
00:18:18.030 --> 00:18:20.943
and when they vary it can be difficult
00:18:20.943 --> 00:18:23.943
and a struggle to hedge those costs.
00:18:29.707 --> 00:18:31.492
Do you have any redirect?
00:18:31.492 --> 00:18:32.532
No, your honor.
00:18:32.532 --> 00:18:33.365
Okay, you rest.
00:18:33.365 --> 00:18:34.292
Yes.
00:18:34.292 --> 00:18:35.125
Okay.
00:18:35.125 --> 00:18:36.375
Thank you, sir.
00:18:42.475 --> 00:18:44.808
Now we're ready for Rayburn.
00:19:08.243 --> 00:19:09.076
And your honor,
00:19:09.076 --> 00:19:12.548
I would note that we had
brought Mr. Braun up to the table.
00:19:12.548 --> 00:19:16.470
Our understanding is that
cross was waived of Ms. Carrie,
00:19:16.470 --> 00:19:18.452
but she is in the room and available.
00:19:18.452 --> 00:19:20.119
Thank you.
00:19:22.396 --> 00:19:24.326
Mr. Braun, would you
please state your name
00:19:24.326 --> 00:19:26.020
and title for the record?
00:19:26.020 --> 00:19:27.125
My name's David Braun.
00:19:27.125 --> 00:19:30.980
I'm the CFO for Rayburn
Country Electric Cooperative.
00:19:30.980 --> 00:19:32.806
And are you the
same David K. Braun
00:19:32.806 --> 00:19:35.252
who submitted pre-filed direct testimony
00:19:35.252 --> 00:19:38.220
in this proceeding as
Rayburn exhibit number two?
00:19:38.220 --> 00:19:39.545
Yes, I am.
00:19:39.545 --> 00:19:41.385
And do you have that
exhibit in front of you?
00:19:41.385 --> 00:19:42.345
Yes, I do.
00:19:42.345 --> 00:19:43.178
Okay.
00:19:43.178 --> 00:19:45.049
If I asked you all the
same questions today,
00:19:45.049 --> 00:19:46.521
would your responses be the same?
00:19:46.521 --> 00:19:47.985
Yes, they would.
00:19:47.985 --> 00:19:51.073
Your honor, I tender the
witness for cross examination.
00:19:51.073 --> 00:19:52.073
Thank you.
00:19:55.006 --> 00:19:56.180
Calpine.
00:19:56.180 --> 00:19:57.621
We have no question.
00:19:57.621 --> 00:19:58.812
Coalition.
00:19:58.812 --> 00:19:59.989
No questions, your honor.
00:19:59.989 --> 00:20:01.416
174 Power.
00:20:01.416 --> 00:20:03.060
No questions, your honor.
00:20:03.060 --> 00:20:04.501
EDF Energy.
00:20:04.501 --> 00:20:06.356
No questions, your honor.
00:20:06.356 --> 00:20:07.587
NG.
00:20:07.587 --> 00:20:09.140
No questions, your honor.
00:20:09.140 --> 00:20:10.260
Exelon.
00:20:10.260 --> 00:20:11.557
No questions, your honor.
00:20:11.557 --> 00:20:12.757
Just Energy.
00:20:12.757 --> 00:20:13.909
No questions, your honor.
00:20:13.909 --> 00:20:14.742
NRG.
00:20:16.142 --> 00:20:16.975
Yes, sir.
00:20:16.975 --> 00:20:17.892
Just a few.
00:20:23.494 --> 00:20:25.911
(man coughs)
00:20:27.750 --> 00:20:29.074
Good afternoon, Mr. Braun.
00:20:29.074 --> 00:20:29.907
Hi.
00:20:29.907 --> 00:20:32.657
Andrea Stover on behalf of NRG.
00:20:36.137 --> 00:20:39.081
Is it correct that Rayburn is
currently outstanding amounts
00:20:39.081 --> 00:20:42.761
owed to ERCOT for
the period of emergency?
00:20:42.761 --> 00:20:43.594
Yes.
00:20:43.594 --> 00:20:45.225
The mounts that have been billed
00:20:45.225 --> 00:20:49.098
the total amounts billed from
ERCOT have not all been paid.
00:20:49.098 --> 00:20:49.945
And can you estimate
00:20:49.945 --> 00:20:52.060
how much Rayburn currently owes?
00:20:52.060 --> 00:20:54.286
The amount that ERCOT
shows that Rayburn owes
00:20:54.286 --> 00:20:56.808
is approximately 640 million.
00:20:56.808 --> 00:20:57.990
Okay.
00:20:57.990 --> 00:21:00.187
And do you have an
estimate of when Rayburn
00:21:00.187 --> 00:21:02.847
intends to pay those amounts back?
00:21:02.847 --> 00:21:05.689
We, our plan is
to pay those back
00:21:05.689 --> 00:21:08.473
once securitization is completed.
00:21:08.473 --> 00:21:09.306
Okay.
00:21:09.306 --> 00:21:10.139
And do you have an estimate of when
00:21:10.139 --> 00:21:11.915
securitization will be completed?
00:21:11.915 --> 00:21:15.563
So as you've heard of the
ERCOT expert talk about,
00:21:15.563 --> 00:21:19.052
securitization is a
long drawn out process.
00:21:19.052 --> 00:21:22.111
We have been working
already several months,
00:21:22.111 --> 00:21:24.882
so I don't know the end time
00:21:24.882 --> 00:21:26.852
of when that will actually happen.
00:21:26.852 --> 00:21:30.725
But so I can't really
speculate as to exactly
00:21:30.725 --> 00:21:32.642
how long that would be.
00:21:33.757 --> 00:21:37.817
But you think
maybe months or years?
00:21:37.817 --> 00:21:38.650
So
00:21:38.650 --> 00:21:40.261
let's certainly hope
months and not years.
00:21:40.261 --> 00:21:41.594
Okay.
00:21:42.476 --> 00:21:45.608
If Rayburn were ultimately
able to securitize amounts
00:21:45.608 --> 00:21:49.508
under Subchapter M, do
you have N, as in Nebraska,
00:21:49.508 --> 00:21:53.962
do you have an estimate
of what those costs would be
00:21:53.962 --> 00:21:56.965
that that Rayburn
would seek to securitize?
00:21:56.965 --> 00:22:01.286
So, in my testimony, I put
in approximately 206 million,
00:22:01.286 --> 00:22:04.185
which is the total amount
of the ancillary charges
00:22:04.185 --> 00:22:07.518
that ERCOT has charged us plus the RDPA.
00:22:10.396 --> 00:22:11.229
And
00:22:13.697 --> 00:22:17.030
so we would start
at that number.
00:22:18.612 --> 00:22:21.877
And have you
reviewed section 39 159B of
00:22:21.877 --> 00:22:24.627
PURA that was adopted under 4492?
00:22:27.579 --> 00:22:28.953
I'm sure I've looked at it,
00:22:28.953 --> 00:22:32.672
but I certainly wouldn't care
to speculate on what it says.
00:22:32.672 --> 00:22:33.876
Okay.
00:22:33.876 --> 00:22:35.626
No further questions.
00:22:36.886 --> 00:22:37.803
Thank you
00:22:42.528 --> 00:22:43.917
Tenaska.
00:22:43.917 --> 00:22:44.960
No questions.
00:22:44.960 --> 00:22:46.219
Texpo.
00:22:46.219 --> 00:22:47.516
No questions, your honor.
00:22:47.516 --> 00:22:48.564
TIEC.
00:22:48.564 --> 00:22:49.406
No, your honor.
00:22:49.406 --> 00:22:50.239
TXU.
00:22:50.239 --> 00:22:51.414
No questions, your honor.
00:22:51.414 --> 00:22:52.675
LCRA.
00:22:52.675 --> 00:22:53.679
No questions, your honor.
00:22:53.679 --> 00:22:54.762
East Texas.
00:22:56.867 --> 00:22:57.910
Golden Spread.
00:22:57.910 --> 00:22:59.080
No questions, your honor.
00:22:59.080 --> 00:23:00.011
South Texas.
00:23:00.011 --> 00:23:01.139
No questions.
00:23:01.139 --> 00:23:01.972
Austin.
00:23:01.972 --> 00:23:02.906
No questions, your honor.
00:23:02.906 --> 00:23:03.739
Lubbock.
00:23:03.739 --> 00:23:04.832
No questions, your honor.
00:23:04.832 --> 00:23:05.792
OPA.
00:23:05.792 --> 00:23:07.506
No questions, your honor.
00:23:07.506 --> 00:23:08.931
ERCOT.
00:23:08.931 --> 00:23:10.431
Yes, your honor.
00:23:25.176 --> 00:23:27.093
Elliot Clark for ERCOT.
00:23:28.249 --> 00:23:32.477
Mr. Braun, you were just
answering some questions about
00:23:32.477 --> 00:23:36.727
securitizing some of
Rayburn's costs for the storm,
00:23:38.680 --> 00:23:42.205
and you have hired a
consultant to help you with that?
00:23:42.205 --> 00:23:43.299
Yes.
00:23:43.299 --> 00:23:46.410
And under Senate bill 1580,
00:23:46.410 --> 00:23:49.620
you don't have to get a financing
order from the Commission,
00:23:49.620 --> 00:23:50.755
do you?
00:23:50.755 --> 00:23:51.849
No, I do not.
00:23:51.849 --> 00:23:53.779
So the only person
or the only entity
00:23:53.779 --> 00:23:56.793
that needs to approve it
is the board of the co-op,
00:23:56.793 --> 00:23:58.230
is that right?
00:23:58.230 --> 00:23:59.063
Yes.
00:23:59.063 --> 00:24:00.876
Them and the market.
00:24:00.876 --> 00:24:01.709
Okay.
00:24:06.486 --> 00:24:09.157
You said the, an answer
to one of the questions,
00:24:09.157 --> 00:24:14.157
that your testimony says
your exposure is 206 million,
00:24:14.351 --> 00:24:16.026
and that's where you would start here
00:24:16.026 --> 00:24:20.315
if you were allowed to
securitize under 4492.
00:24:20.315 --> 00:24:21.450
Is that right?
00:24:21.450 --> 00:24:22.875
That is correct.
00:24:22.875 --> 00:24:23.708
Okay.
00:24:23.708 --> 00:24:25.263
You have your testimony
there in front of you.
00:24:25.263 --> 00:24:27.430
Can you turn to page five?
00:24:29.275 --> 00:24:30.829
Yes.
00:24:30.829 --> 00:24:34.477
Do you recall when your
attorney was questioning ERCOT
00:24:34.477 --> 00:24:37.450
that she used a defined term,
00:24:37.450 --> 00:24:39.333
for purposes of our conversation today,
00:24:39.333 --> 00:24:42.229
she called it "Relevant costs".
00:24:42.229 --> 00:24:43.062
Yes.
00:24:43.062 --> 00:24:43.895
Okay.
00:24:43.895 --> 00:24:47.555
And everyone agreed
that relevant costs means
00:24:47.555 --> 00:24:51.222
ancillary service costs
above the $9,000 cap
00:24:52.162 --> 00:24:53.796
and the RDPAs, correct?
00:24:53.796 --> 00:24:54.963
That is correct.
00:24:54.963 --> 00:24:58.566
And your testimony
in which you say
00:24:58.566 --> 00:25:00.614
Rayburn's costs are 208 million
00:25:00.614 --> 00:25:05.134
includes more than those
relevant costs, doesn't it?
00:25:05.134 --> 00:25:08.868
So it includes all of those,
all of the ancillary charges.
00:25:08.868 --> 00:25:10.407
Okay.
00:25:10.407 --> 00:25:13.396
So the number you gave is
more than the relevant costs?
00:25:13.396 --> 00:25:14.229
Yes.
00:25:14.229 --> 00:25:15.062
Okay.
00:25:15.062 --> 00:25:18.481
And you did not provide
an amount in your testimony
00:25:18.481 --> 00:25:21.547
of the relevant cost as far as it goes
00:25:21.547 --> 00:25:25.911
for ancillary service costs
above the system-wide offer cap.
00:25:25.911 --> 00:25:26.744
Correct?
00:25:26.744 --> 00:25:27.577
We did not.
00:25:27.577 --> 00:25:30.888
We did not have those numbers available.
00:25:30.888 --> 00:25:31.721
Okay.
00:25:31.721 --> 00:25:35.455
And the amount of the
relevant costs for Rayburn
00:25:35.455 --> 00:25:40.122
above the $9,000 cap is
actually $57.1 million, correct?
00:25:41.119 --> 00:25:42.683
I do not know that.
00:25:42.683 --> 00:25:44.954
I saw that in ERCOT's testimony.
00:25:44.954 --> 00:25:47.419
You saw that in
Mr. Ogelman's testimony, right?
00:25:47.419 --> 00:25:48.252
Yes.
Okay.
00:25:48.252 --> 00:25:50.474
Do you have any evidence
to dispute that amount?
00:25:50.474 --> 00:25:51.307
No, I do not.
00:25:51.307 --> 00:25:55.394
Like I said, we have not
calculated what the amount is
00:25:55.394 --> 00:25:56.730
over the 9,000.
00:25:56.730 --> 00:25:57.563
Okay.
00:25:57.563 --> 00:25:59.535
You haven't gone to
check Mr. Ogelman's math?
00:25:59.535 --> 00:26:00.632
No, we have not.
00:26:00.632 --> 00:26:01.512
Okay.
00:26:01.512 --> 00:26:03.096
Assuming it is accurate
00:26:03.096 --> 00:26:05.804
then the relevant costs for Rayburn
00:26:05.804 --> 00:26:09.408
would actually be $94.9
million approximately.
00:26:09.408 --> 00:26:10.795
Correct?
00:26:10.795 --> 00:26:12.990
That's your calculation?
00:26:12.990 --> 00:26:13.823
Yes.
00:26:13.823 --> 00:26:17.494
Well, it's 57.1 million
plus 37.8 million.
00:26:17.494 --> 00:26:20.191
And I'm
assuming the 37.8 million
00:26:20.191 --> 00:26:22.414
is my share of the uplift.
00:26:22.414 --> 00:26:23.848
That's your RDPAs
00:26:23.848 --> 00:26:25.861
and that's in your testimony
pretty clearly, correct?
00:26:25.861 --> 00:26:26.694
Yes, correct.
Okay.
00:26:26.694 --> 00:26:30.027
So the $37.8 million
number you agree with
00:26:30.027 --> 00:26:34.012
and the $57.1 million
you can't dispute, correct?
00:26:34.012 --> 00:26:34.845
Correct.
00:26:34.845 --> 00:26:36.030
So if I add
those together,
00:26:36.030 --> 00:26:39.134
that's a 94.9 million
approximately, okay?
00:26:39.134 --> 00:26:39.967
Okay.
00:26:39.967 --> 00:26:43.266
And it's not
the $208.9 million
00:26:43.266 --> 00:26:45.600
that you put in your testimony, is it?
00:26:45.600 --> 00:26:46.433
No.
00:26:46.433 --> 00:26:48.107
And I was very clear in my testimony
00:26:48.107 --> 00:26:50.602
of what that number was.
00:26:50.602 --> 00:26:51.435
Okay.
00:26:51.435 --> 00:26:53.690
So if we look at the relevant costs
00:26:53.690 --> 00:26:56.773
that could be securitized under 4492,
00:26:57.692 --> 00:27:00.636
it's less than half of
the numbers you put
00:27:00.636 --> 00:27:02.376
in your testimony, right?
00:27:02.376 --> 00:27:03.209
Yes.
00:27:03.209 --> 00:27:06.042
If you look at 206 versus 57, yes.
00:27:14.121 --> 00:27:17.731
If you were allowed
to participate in
00:27:17.731 --> 00:27:21.483
and receive uplift proceeds
under Subchapter N,
00:27:21.483 --> 00:27:24.184
would you be concerned that
00:27:24.184 --> 00:27:27.824
Rayburn's current status
might create some credit risks
00:27:27.824 --> 00:27:30.407
that would downgrade that debt?
00:27:32.014 --> 00:27:34.400
No, I don't think so.
00:27:34.400 --> 00:27:37.000
Have you
been told by any bank
00:27:37.000 --> 00:27:40.333
that you cannot securitize $650 million?
00:27:41.418 --> 00:27:42.251
No.
00:27:42.251 --> 00:27:44.558
Have you
been told by any bank
00:27:44.558 --> 00:27:46.571
that they won't do business with you?
00:27:46.571 --> 00:27:47.574
No.
00:27:47.574 --> 00:27:48.788
Have you
approached the bank?
00:27:48.788 --> 00:27:49.621
No.
00:27:51.553 --> 00:27:53.985
We haven't got that
far in the process yet.
00:27:53.985 --> 00:27:55.542
Okay.
00:27:55.542 --> 00:27:58.727
And you can't tell us
as you sit here today
00:27:58.727 --> 00:28:00.946
when you might finish that process?
00:28:00.946 --> 00:28:01.779
No.
00:28:03.791 --> 00:28:05.722
Now, I understand that
there's been some testimony
00:28:05.722 --> 00:28:08.939
from the PUC staff about
a potential path forward
00:28:08.939 --> 00:28:13.119
that would allow Rayburn to
opt out under Subchapter N.
00:28:13.119 --> 00:28:14.173
And are you aware of that?
00:28:14.173 --> 00:28:15.006
Yes.
00:28:15.006 --> 00:28:17.614
Does Rayburn want to do that?
00:28:17.614 --> 00:28:19.031
I have no idea.
00:28:20.909 --> 00:28:24.137
My first hearing
of it was today so
00:28:25.663 --> 00:28:27.633
I don't have an answer for you
00:28:27.633 --> 00:28:31.216
nor am I authorized
to speak for the board.
00:28:35.937 --> 00:28:37.154
No further questions.
00:28:37.154 --> 00:28:38.154
Thank you.
00:28:39.909 --> 00:28:41.242
Staff.
00:28:42.338 --> 00:28:44.810
No questions, your honor.
00:28:44.810 --> 00:28:46.143
Commissioners?
00:28:48.287 --> 00:28:50.513
Oh, and also, so Commissioner's office,
00:28:50.513 --> 00:28:52.226
would you bring your other witness up
00:28:52.226 --> 00:28:53.856
just in case they may have
00:28:53.856 --> 00:28:56.689
questions for her as well, please.
00:29:16.669 --> 00:29:17.502
Thank you, Ms. Carey.
00:29:17.502 --> 00:29:22.413
Mr. Braun, and this may
be for either one of you.
00:29:22.413 --> 00:29:25.589
On your direct
testimony, page five,
00:29:26.576 --> 00:29:31.070
as to the question of is
Rayburn in default with ERCOT?
00:29:31.070 --> 00:29:32.056
You answered no.
00:29:32.056 --> 00:29:34.355
I believe ERCOT may dispute that
00:29:34.355 --> 00:29:37.436
so by definition, that is a dispute.
00:29:37.436 --> 00:29:39.002
In terms of the functionality
00:29:39.002 --> 00:29:43.669
of processing securitization
for 4492, in this instance,
00:29:45.788 --> 00:29:50.022
is your interpretation or
reading of the mechanics
00:29:50.022 --> 00:29:53.939
of this process as laid
out in the legislation,
00:29:57.599 --> 00:30:01.409
are all disputes to be settled
before we can move forward
00:30:01.409 --> 00:30:02.909
with issuing bonds
00:30:04.986 --> 00:30:06.819
as it relates to 4492?
00:30:15.025 --> 00:30:17.664
I don't really know
the answer to that
00:30:17.664 --> 00:30:19.664
because I haven't really
00:30:20.955 --> 00:30:25.123
thought about whether or not
I'm slowing down that process
00:30:25.123 --> 00:30:27.790
by potentially having a dispute.
00:30:30.180 --> 00:30:31.895
So I can't really...
00:30:31.895 --> 00:30:33.833
I don't know that I know the answer.
00:30:33.833 --> 00:30:34.891
Okay.
00:30:34.891 --> 00:30:36.401
Go ahead, Commissioner.
00:30:36.401 --> 00:30:37.234
So are you?
00:30:37.234 --> 00:30:38.067
Okay.
00:30:38.961 --> 00:30:40.107
What charges are you disputing?
00:30:40.107 --> 00:30:44.013
Are you disputing the 640
million, a portion of that amount,
00:30:44.013 --> 00:30:46.647
or does any of the
amount that you're disputing
00:30:46.647 --> 00:30:48.502
with ERCOT currently right now include
00:30:48.502 --> 00:30:53.002
RDPA charges and ancillary
service costs above $9,000?
00:30:55.035 --> 00:30:55.909
Yes.
00:30:55.909 --> 00:31:00.097
It includes that plus
energy charges as well.
00:31:00.097 --> 00:31:00.930
Okay.
00:31:00.930 --> 00:31:03.432
So if the costs that you're currently,
00:31:03.432 --> 00:31:06.527
I believe trying to securitize
are in dispute right now,
00:31:06.527 --> 00:31:08.625
how does, you know, what?
00:31:08.625 --> 00:31:09.458
So.
00:31:09.458 --> 00:31:10.515
Can you explain?
00:31:10.515 --> 00:31:11.520
Sure.
00:31:11.520 --> 00:31:14.194
So we are moving
forward with securitization,
00:31:14.194 --> 00:31:17.246
assuming that we are
going to try to securitize
00:31:17.246 --> 00:31:20.552
the full 865 million
that ERCOT billed us
00:31:20.552 --> 00:31:22.135
for those six days.
00:31:23.756 --> 00:31:24.756
If we end up
00:31:27.026 --> 00:31:31.596
with a dispute resolution
that reduces that amount,
00:31:31.596 --> 00:31:35.988
then our goal is to have,
allow for our pre-payment
00:31:35.988 --> 00:31:40.155
in our securitization to
prepay that balance back.
00:31:41.421 --> 00:31:42.754
And if not, then
00:31:43.889 --> 00:31:46.062
we would have to
figure out a different way
00:31:46.062 --> 00:31:47.654
to use those proceeds,
00:31:47.654 --> 00:31:51.821
to make sure that it goes
back to those consumers.
00:31:57.607 --> 00:31:59.094
I'm just trying to figure out
how we can get an accurate,
00:31:59.094 --> 00:32:03.560
you know, an estimate
of the eligible costs,
00:32:03.560 --> 00:32:07.727
given this dispute and
the significant differences
00:32:09.571 --> 00:32:12.777
in money that I think, you know,
00:32:12.777 --> 00:32:17.421
Rayburn says that they
incur 208 million, I believe,
00:32:17.421 --> 00:32:19.921
ERCOT says they incurred 94.9.
00:32:21.068 --> 00:32:22.406
It's over 50% difference there
00:32:22.406 --> 00:32:25.586
on the charges that would
be part of this proceeding.
00:32:25.586 --> 00:32:26.419
And so,
00:32:27.304 --> 00:32:28.980
you know, in terms of timing
00:32:28.980 --> 00:32:30.524
and not delaying this transaction,
00:32:30.524 --> 00:32:32.993
I'm trying to understand how...
00:32:32.993 --> 00:32:35.568
I'm trying to peel back the
layers of what's going on
00:32:35.568 --> 00:32:39.502
in your situation that could
impact how we move forward
00:32:39.502 --> 00:32:42.720
and (indistinct) market
close this transaction.
00:32:42.720 --> 00:32:47.551
So I think the first step is
we have to go back through
00:32:47.551 --> 00:32:50.999
and calculate what we
think the amount should be
00:32:50.999 --> 00:32:55.705
of ancillary charges that
exceed the $9,000 cap.
00:32:55.705 --> 00:32:58.306
Once we know what that number is,
00:32:58.306 --> 00:33:03.306
then if it's close to the number
that ERCOT has calculated,
00:33:03.430 --> 00:33:06.847
then I think we all
move forward on 4492.
00:33:11.243 --> 00:33:15.184
So here's a chicken
or the egg question for you.
00:33:15.184 --> 00:33:16.017
Yes.
00:33:17.777 --> 00:33:18.860
In terms of
00:33:20.197 --> 00:33:21.030
1580,
00:33:22.450 --> 00:33:26.617
do you believe that as
per the conditions of 1580,
00:33:28.511 --> 00:33:31.240
you are required to avail yourself
00:33:31.240 --> 00:33:34.838
of that financing mechanism first,
00:33:34.838 --> 00:33:39.064
and then whatever is
left over go into 4492, or?
00:33:41.583 --> 00:33:42.544
What's your interpretation?
00:33:42.544 --> 00:33:43.377
So
00:33:44.301 --> 00:33:45.611
let me back up
00:33:45.611 --> 00:33:47.878
and take the second half of that first,
00:33:47.878 --> 00:33:49.604
if that's all right.
00:33:49.604 --> 00:33:52.071
So 4492 is very specific
00:33:52.071 --> 00:33:54.667
about the charges
that can be securitized.
00:33:54.667 --> 00:33:59.570
So it's not dependent at
all on what I can or may
00:33:59.570 --> 00:34:02.280
or won't be able to do under 1580.
00:34:02.280 --> 00:34:04.363
So 4492 stands on its own
00:34:05.709 --> 00:34:09.966
and the amount that I
would be able to participate in
00:34:09.966 --> 00:34:12.565
as securitization would be calculated
00:34:12.565 --> 00:34:15.785
based on the specifics under 4492.
00:34:15.785 --> 00:34:20.543
The challenge as has been
talked about today as well is
00:34:20.543 --> 00:34:23.376
is that for me to opt out of 4492,
00:34:25.595 --> 00:34:29.352
I have to have all of my
ERCOT invoices paid,
00:34:29.352 --> 00:34:33.185
and the only way I can
do that is to have 1580
00:34:34.927 --> 00:34:36.934
and do a securitization.
00:34:36.934 --> 00:34:40.234
And there's this timing issue going on
00:34:40.234 --> 00:34:42.153
that we've talked about a little bit.
00:34:42.153 --> 00:34:44.871
So, and I don't know,
00:34:46.358 --> 00:34:50.349
I don't know how to resolve that issue.
00:34:50.349 --> 00:34:53.139
And you just stated
that the cooperative
00:34:53.139 --> 00:34:57.264
hasn't talked to any
banks and hasn't taken
00:34:57.264 --> 00:34:59.349
any steps to try to move
forward with (indistinct).
00:34:59.349 --> 00:35:00.394
No.
00:35:00.394 --> 00:35:01.727
That's a poor...
00:35:03.336 --> 00:35:07.017
If I left that impression, my apologies.
00:35:07.017 --> 00:35:07.850
Okay.
00:35:07.850 --> 00:35:10.683
We have contracted
with lawyers,
00:35:13.661 --> 00:35:15.376
with securitization lawyers,
00:35:15.376 --> 00:35:18.444
with a financial consulting firm
00:35:18.444 --> 00:35:22.085
that's leading a securitization effort.
00:35:22.085 --> 00:35:24.261
We are
00:35:25.304 --> 00:35:30.238
putting together and
the offering document
00:35:31.370 --> 00:35:34.226
is working on a first draft of that
00:35:34.226 --> 00:35:36.559
offering document right now.
00:35:37.996 --> 00:35:40.432
The financial consultants
are already starting
00:35:40.432 --> 00:35:43.182
to pre-market the securitization.
00:35:45.218 --> 00:35:46.051
So...
00:35:48.297 --> 00:35:52.593
And we've actually talked
with the rating agencies as well
00:35:52.593 --> 00:35:56.843
to try to get onto their
calendar to prepare to get
00:35:57.887 --> 00:35:59.970
the securitization rated.
00:36:00.834 --> 00:36:03.323
So there are a lot of things going on.
00:36:03.323 --> 00:36:06.605
The challenge is is I
don't know how long
00:36:06.605 --> 00:36:10.254
all those things are going to take.
00:36:10.254 --> 00:36:14.504
So when somebody asks
me how long it's going to be,
00:36:15.681 --> 00:36:19.207
I'm a little hesitant to
sit there and give you
00:36:19.207 --> 00:36:20.768
a number of weeks or months
00:36:20.768 --> 00:36:25.683
when I don't know exactly
how long that's going to be.
00:36:25.683 --> 00:36:26.729
Okay.
00:36:26.729 --> 00:36:29.415
And going back to your
prior statement about going,
00:36:29.415 --> 00:36:31.990
you know, you will go back
and recalculate the costs
00:36:31.990 --> 00:36:33.752
that you incurred during
the period of emergency
00:36:33.752 --> 00:36:37.625
for RDPA and ancillary
service costs above this walk.
00:36:37.625 --> 00:36:40.716
And if you go back
and you determine that
00:36:40.716 --> 00:36:42.672
the costs were actually
closer to the number
00:36:42.672 --> 00:36:45.890
that ERCOT has submitted
in the rebuttal testimony,
00:36:45.890 --> 00:36:47.253
you will walk away.
00:36:47.253 --> 00:36:49.573
But if they're not, I mean,
00:36:49.573 --> 00:36:52.734
you could potentially
make the decision to
00:36:52.734 --> 00:36:56.484
dispute those charges
all the way up to a ADR
00:36:58.476 --> 00:37:01.158
setting at ERCOT that could result in,
00:37:01.158 --> 00:37:03.842
if you're not happy with
their decision in ADR,
00:37:03.842 --> 00:37:06.259
and appeal to the Commission.
00:37:07.989 --> 00:37:09.368
So how does that impact?
00:37:09.368 --> 00:37:11.035
I mean, so I'm just.
00:37:13.679 --> 00:37:16.677
Yeah, you, it sounds
like, you know the process
00:37:16.677 --> 00:37:19.159
as well or better than I do.
00:37:19.159 --> 00:37:22.716
So yes, that's all
going to take time.
00:37:22.716 --> 00:37:23.549
And
00:37:24.426 --> 00:37:26.259
I think it's important
00:37:27.696 --> 00:37:30.465
that we get the amounts correct
00:37:30.465 --> 00:37:33.831
but we also get it done
as quickly as we can.
00:37:33.831 --> 00:37:37.855
But it's important to
get it correct as well.
00:37:37.855 --> 00:37:42.031
You know, we provide
power to about 250,000
00:37:43.105 --> 00:37:45.744
rural Texans.
00:37:45.744 --> 00:37:50.214
Many of them are
economically disadvantaged.
00:37:50.214 --> 00:37:54.165
We want to do our very
best for those consumers
00:37:54.165 --> 00:37:55.806
and so we're trying to make sure
00:37:55.806 --> 00:37:58.306
that we get the amounts right.
00:38:04.254 --> 00:38:06.233
Just one question, and that is,
00:38:06.233 --> 00:38:10.983
if you got clarity on your
ability to opt out from ERCOT,
00:38:14.733 --> 00:38:17.923
would you all be happy
to do all of your financing,
00:38:17.923 --> 00:38:22.129
all your securitization
through the 1580 mechanism?
00:38:22.129 --> 00:38:22.962
So,
00:38:25.723 --> 00:38:28.357
I don't really know the answer to that
00:38:28.357 --> 00:38:30.028
because I think in reality,
00:38:30.028 --> 00:38:32.290
what it really is going to boil down to
00:38:32.290 --> 00:38:35.707
is our ability to
securitize the full 865
00:38:37.253 --> 00:38:38.852
and whether or not the market
00:38:38.852 --> 00:38:40.988
will actually allow us to do that.
00:38:40.988 --> 00:38:45.738
That's probably the biggest
unknown for us at this point.
00:38:49.307 --> 00:38:50.691
And so in reality,
00:38:50.691 --> 00:38:55.536
I'm trying to do everything
that we can do to make sure that
00:38:55.536 --> 00:38:58.716
somehow we can securitize all of this
00:38:58.716 --> 00:39:01.383
so that ERCOT gets paid in full.
00:39:03.985 --> 00:39:06.550
While keeping options
that both securitizations
00:39:06.550 --> 00:39:07.967
may be necessary.
00:39:09.050 --> 00:39:11.073
And that's the challenge
00:39:11.073 --> 00:39:15.656
is that the timing of the
two don't work well together.
00:39:16.637 --> 00:39:17.470
Okay.
00:39:17.470 --> 00:39:18.303
Thank you.
00:39:19.797 --> 00:39:23.047
So according to
ERCOT's view, you're,
00:39:24.517 --> 00:39:28.517
and again, this is ERCOT's
assertion, not yours,
00:39:29.925 --> 00:39:34.925
$94 million would qualify under
RTPA and ancillary services,
00:39:35.061 --> 00:39:40.036
at least that's how I took
that line of questioning.
00:39:40.036 --> 00:39:42.504
So that'd be 94
million out of 2.1 million
00:39:42.504 --> 00:39:46.695
and I'm trying to ascertain
in terms of the 2.1 billion,
00:39:46.695 --> 00:39:48.028
out of the total
00:39:48.991 --> 00:39:52.436
boat that we could securitize here.
00:39:52.436 --> 00:39:53.269
And
00:39:55.621 --> 00:40:00.454
if we establish a process and
we provide a opt-out process
00:40:02.060 --> 00:40:04.275
as required under the law,
00:40:04.275 --> 00:40:09.275
does Rayburn intend to
apply under your interpretation
00:40:09.404 --> 00:40:10.285
of the law?
00:40:10.285 --> 00:40:11.118
I'm sorry,
00:40:12.972 --> 00:40:15.569
to opt out or not opt out.
00:40:15.569 --> 00:40:17.660
And you have said
that you don't know yet.
00:40:17.660 --> 00:40:18.577
Is that accurate?
00:40:18.577 --> 00:40:19.410
That is correct.
00:40:19.410 --> 00:40:20.976
Okay.
00:40:20.976 --> 00:40:22.614
That's a board decision.
00:40:22.614 --> 00:40:24.860
That's not for me to determine.
00:40:24.860 --> 00:40:25.783
But at the end of the day,
00:40:25.783 --> 00:40:29.193
would you say it as a higher
priority that you don't get
00:40:29.193 --> 00:40:31.443
billed twice on any type of
00:40:34.935 --> 00:40:36.865
one you securitize under 1580
00:40:36.865 --> 00:40:41.115
and you're under the cost
burden of 1580 to pay off
00:40:42.049 --> 00:40:44.112
that financing mechanism.
00:40:44.112 --> 00:40:47.642
But then also, you know,
if you have not opted out,
00:40:47.642 --> 00:40:49.179
you're also paying a securitization
00:40:49.179 --> 00:40:51.075
of the rest of the market.
00:40:51.075 --> 00:40:53.297
So in terms of the
priority of this Commission,
00:40:53.297 --> 00:40:55.952
is that what you would
advise our priorities should be?
00:40:55.952 --> 00:40:56.785
So
00:40:58.460 --> 00:41:01.222
I think my advice to the Commission is
00:41:01.222 --> 00:41:04.920
is to figure out a
way that I pay only the
00:41:07.900 --> 00:41:12.817
invoices that I owe ERCOT
through a securitization process.
00:41:13.738 --> 00:41:16.321
So whether that's 1580 or 4492.
00:41:20.237 --> 00:41:23.253
And I don't really
00:41:23.253 --> 00:41:27.253
want to under 4492, if
I don't opt out and then,
00:41:29.781 --> 00:41:32.671
and I can't participate in 4492,
00:41:32.671 --> 00:41:37.039
then I'm stuck with the full
amount that I owe ERCOT
00:41:37.039 --> 00:41:38.804
plus I'm gonna pay,
00:41:38.804 --> 00:41:41.887
or our consumers are going to pay for
00:41:43.878 --> 00:41:44.711
a share of
00:41:46.067 --> 00:41:48.644
those uplift charges.
00:41:48.644 --> 00:41:49.477
And
00:41:51.352 --> 00:41:55.352
my goal is to at least
keep that from happening.
00:41:58.030 --> 00:42:00.280
Couldn't you just
00:42:01.217 --> 00:42:02.300
use the 1580
00:42:03.603 --> 00:42:06.861
for everything but the 94 million?
00:42:06.861 --> 00:42:08.220
So that,
00:42:08.220 --> 00:42:11.552
in my mind, that is the best outcome
00:42:11.552 --> 00:42:13.802
that I could possibly have.
00:42:15.748 --> 00:42:17.295
So.
00:42:17.295 --> 00:42:18.770
Well,
00:42:18.770 --> 00:42:22.006
it may be your best, but
is it best for the market,
00:42:22.006 --> 00:42:24.434
which is, I think is
the bigger question?
00:42:24.434 --> 00:42:28.287
And so I'm trying
really hard to...
00:42:28.287 --> 00:42:29.120
So
00:42:31.173 --> 00:42:34.070
I'm advocating for our consumer members.
00:42:34.070 --> 00:42:34.949
Right.
So.
00:42:34.949 --> 00:42:36.461
Okay?
00:42:36.461 --> 00:42:38.461
And I realize that we're
00:42:39.731 --> 00:42:42.967
a participant in the
wholesale market as well.
00:42:42.967 --> 00:42:44.550
And so we certainly
00:42:45.565 --> 00:42:48.458
enjoy the benefits of a
00:42:49.514 --> 00:42:51.401
well operated market
00:42:51.401 --> 00:42:54.568
and we don't take that lightly either.
00:42:57.353 --> 00:43:00.103
But it just doesn't seem fair for
00:43:01.170 --> 00:43:05.146
Rayburn to pay all of the
costs that we owe ERCOT
00:43:05.146 --> 00:43:09.222
plus a share of other
people's uplift charges
00:43:09.222 --> 00:43:12.389
if I don't get to participate in 4492.
00:43:13.421 --> 00:43:16.088
So if I'm participating in 4492,
00:43:16.945 --> 00:43:21.513
then I'm going to pay my share
of everybody's uplift charge
00:43:21.513 --> 00:43:23.680
that participates in 4492.
00:43:25.451 --> 00:43:27.379
And the only way you
don't pay the uplift charges
00:43:27.379 --> 00:43:28.266
is if you opt out?
00:43:28.266 --> 00:43:30.252
That is correct.
00:43:30.252 --> 00:43:31.085
Okay.
00:43:31.085 --> 00:43:34.002
So given your understanding of 1580
00:43:36.436 --> 00:43:39.936
and possible
functionality of policy here,
00:43:41.359 --> 00:43:45.506
is there a way to securitize
under 1580, again,
00:43:45.506 --> 00:43:48.189
depending on the appetite
of the market for your bonds,
00:43:48.189 --> 00:43:52.939
and then refinance a portion
of that by opting into 4492,
00:43:56.213 --> 00:43:58.632
because those interests will be lower?
00:43:58.632 --> 00:43:59.465
I don't know.
00:43:59.465 --> 00:44:00.298
I'm trying to square this.
So.
00:44:00.298 --> 00:44:01.131
Right.
00:44:04.011 --> 00:44:08.391
I mean, that's certainly
a possibility just like
00:44:08.391 --> 00:44:12.096
if we end up disputing
the invoices with ERCOT
00:44:12.096 --> 00:44:16.123
and they agree that there
was an error in the pricing
00:44:16.123 --> 00:44:19.173
or whatever, and so we would,
00:44:19.173 --> 00:44:22.781
I think I mentioned before,
that we would try our best
00:44:22.781 --> 00:44:25.460
to have the securitization under 1580
00:44:25.460 --> 00:44:28.686
that would allow for a
prepayment without penalty.
00:44:28.686 --> 00:44:32.337
So that would essentially
do the same thing.
00:44:32.337 --> 00:44:36.528
We then would basically
participate in the securitization
00:44:36.528 --> 00:44:40.888
under 4492, make a (indistinct) payment
00:44:40.888 --> 00:44:44.333
on the securitization under 1580,
00:44:44.333 --> 00:44:47.344
if that's available as well.
00:44:47.344 --> 00:44:50.028
And that's all assuming
that the market is okay
00:44:50.028 --> 00:44:54.028
with these prepayments,
which is not a standard.
00:44:55.849 --> 00:44:57.659
It's not, what I'm understanding,
00:44:57.659 --> 00:44:59.933
is not some of the standard language
00:44:59.933 --> 00:45:02.266
in a typical securitization.
00:45:03.501 --> 00:45:06.981
Seems that as an initial
matter might be a good idea
00:45:06.981 --> 00:45:10.609
to go back and recalculate
your cost for RDPA charges
00:45:10.609 --> 00:45:14.261
and ancillary service costs (indistinct)
00:45:14.261 --> 00:45:16.679
as soon as possible so
that you can figure out
00:45:16.679 --> 00:45:19.232
where you stand with ERCOT
in the settlement dispute,
00:45:19.232 --> 00:45:21.465
and you can give us a
little bit more of an idea
00:45:21.465 --> 00:45:23.685
of where things stand.
00:45:23.685 --> 00:45:27.209
Because if you're not
happy with where you are,
00:45:27.209 --> 00:45:30.000
then I know you can't give
you an answer right now,
00:45:30.000 --> 00:45:35.000
but this could turn into a more
elongated process at ERCOT
00:45:35.232 --> 00:45:40.104
potentially that, you know,
we're having to move forward,
00:45:40.104 --> 00:45:44.057
and it seems like you need
to square up your costs with.
00:45:44.057 --> 00:45:45.057
You can go back and recalculate them
00:45:45.057 --> 00:45:46.056
and see where you stand
00:45:46.056 --> 00:45:48.855
in terms of that settlement dispute.
00:45:48.855 --> 00:45:49.770
Yes.
00:45:49.770 --> 00:45:52.437
And so you're talking about just
00:45:54.564 --> 00:45:57.797
the amount that would
be eligible under 4492?
00:45:57.797 --> 00:45:59.059
Right.
Yes.
00:45:59.059 --> 00:46:01.229
At least so we
have a better figure
00:46:01.229 --> 00:46:02.769
if you agree with ERCOT, if you don't.
00:46:02.769 --> 00:46:03.782
If you don't agree with them,
00:46:03.782 --> 00:46:06.763
then that turns into its
own process, potentially,
00:46:06.763 --> 00:46:09.699
depending on how your board
or whoever makes a decision
00:46:09.699 --> 00:46:12.555
on how far they wanna
carry that dispute up.
00:46:12.555 --> 00:46:16.164
So that would at
least give us an idea
00:46:16.164 --> 00:46:19.247
of whether you have a definite number
00:46:21.433 --> 00:46:25.094
or those charges during
the period of emergency
00:46:25.094 --> 00:46:27.011
so we can at least have
00:46:28.097 --> 00:46:30.680
some clue as to what, you know,
00:46:32.154 --> 00:46:35.156
how much you're asking for in 4492
00:46:35.156 --> 00:46:37.406
in terms of securitization.
00:46:38.290 --> 00:46:39.123
Yes.
00:46:39.123 --> 00:46:40.256
Right.
I agree.
00:46:40.256 --> 00:46:41.089
Okay.
00:46:46.450 --> 00:46:48.171
Any redirect?
00:46:48.171 --> 00:46:50.308
Just very
briefly, your honor.
00:46:50.308 --> 00:46:51.872
Go ahead.
00:46:51.872 --> 00:46:53.060
Now,
00:46:53.060 --> 00:46:56.668
Mr. Braun, as we know,
you're not a lawyer.
00:46:56.668 --> 00:46:58.501
Your remarks represent
00:46:59.557 --> 00:47:03.775
your expertise as a CFO
and you were not intending
00:47:03.775 --> 00:47:05.764
to convey any legal conclusions
00:47:05.764 --> 00:47:08.171
to the Commission, correct?
00:47:08.171 --> 00:47:09.157
Correct.
00:47:09.157 --> 00:47:10.146
Okay.
00:47:10.146 --> 00:47:11.646
That's all I have.
00:47:13.560 --> 00:47:14.393
Okay.
00:47:15.392 --> 00:47:17.045
Thank you very much.
00:47:17.045 --> 00:47:18.517
(indistinct)
00:47:18.517 --> 00:47:19.872
Commissioners, we
have not talked about
00:47:19.872 --> 00:47:22.569
what time we wanna
start tomorrow morning.
00:47:22.569 --> 00:47:24.347
Nine o'clock or some other time?
00:47:24.347 --> 00:47:25.499
What is your pleasure?
00:47:25.499 --> 00:47:27.471
(indistinct)
00:47:27.471 --> 00:47:28.587
Yes, nine o'clock.
00:47:28.587 --> 00:47:30.235
Okay.
00:47:30.235 --> 00:47:31.068
Is there?
00:47:31.068 --> 00:47:32.231
Yes, sir, Mr. (indistinct).
00:47:32.231 --> 00:47:33.405
Excuse me, your honor.
00:47:33.405 --> 00:47:36.577
Mr. Ogelman has told me that
he does have some clarification
00:47:36.577 --> 00:47:39.017
that he would like to add.
00:47:39.017 --> 00:47:40.782
It doesn't have to be done tonight.
00:47:40.782 --> 00:47:42.456
It can easily be done tomorrow.
00:47:42.456 --> 00:47:46.588
But on the issue of
how netting would affect
00:47:46.588 --> 00:47:49.137
using Ms. Simpson's calculations.
00:47:49.137 --> 00:47:53.024
So he just needs to add
some clarification on that.
00:47:53.024 --> 00:47:53.857
(indistinct)
00:47:53.857 --> 00:47:54.690
Tomorrow.
00:47:54.690 --> 00:47:55.523
Tomorrow's confirmed.
00:47:55.523 --> 00:47:56.356
It's fine.
00:47:56.356 --> 00:47:57.189
Tomorrow.
00:47:57.189 --> 00:47:58.022
All right.
00:47:58.022 --> 00:47:58.855
Remind me.
00:47:58.855 --> 00:48:01.610
We'll take that up first
thing tomorrow morning.
00:48:01.610 --> 00:48:05.065
And to the extent you
can sit in the same place,
00:48:05.065 --> 00:48:06.359
that would help me a little bit.
00:48:06.359 --> 00:48:07.985
(all laugh)
00:48:07.985 --> 00:48:08.818
Try to do that.
00:48:08.818 --> 00:48:09.651
Yes, ma'am?
00:48:09.651 --> 00:48:10.484
Your honor,
just for the record.
00:48:10.484 --> 00:48:11.516
Rayburn rests.
00:48:11.516 --> 00:48:12.661
Thank you for that.
00:48:12.661 --> 00:48:14.830
And we'll see you
tomorrow morning at nine.
00:48:14.830 --> 00:48:15.663
Thank you.