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.