(gavel bangs)
-: This meeting of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas will come to order to consider matters
that have been duly posted with the Secretary of State
of Texas for October 13th, 2021.
My name is Will McAdams.
I'm joined today by Commissioner Lori Cobos
and Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty.
At this time, we will...
The first item to be taken up is agenda item number one,
docket number 52321,
application of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
for a debt obligation order under PURA Chapter 39,
Subchapter M, in request for a good cause exception.
Now there were a number of proposed corrections
and exceptions received from stakeholders
over the last days.
There were some very good clarifications
and corrections suggested,
but I believe suggested substantive changes are unnecessary.
My view.
However, I believe that some of the clarifications
that ERCOT has proposed could be acceptable.
And if you're agreeable, I'll sort of walked through
those right now and get your thoughts.
In the discussion section, ERCOT proposed the use of phrase,
"finding of a debt service reserve."
I would propose accepting that and the use
of that phrase consistently throughout the order.
To me, that seemed like clarification
that they simply needed as they move forward
with processing the actual security.
And I'll just move through the others,
and that way y'all can follow up with your comments.
I would also support ERCOT suggested findings to fact
of numbers 54A, 56, and 79A.
And I would also accept ERCOT clarification
on QSEs and CRR account holders in the conclusion
of law 15C.
And then I'm gonna pause there
and kind of wait for discussion,
but I have one more issue that I'd like to call ERCOT
to come up and clarify, and that's in the issuance letter.
So ERCOT, you're...
getting the bullpen.
So with those findings of fact,
before I open it up to ERCOT for clarification,
any issues on those?
And that's 54A, 56, and 79A.
Mr. Glotfelty, do you have anything?
-: I have nothing. I agree.
-: I'm kind of pulling them up right now.
-: Sure. No, no, no, take your time.
-: And these were consistent with adding funding
of debt service reserve?
-: Correct.
-: Okay, yes. I agree with the change.
-: Yeah, and then on 54A, 56, and 79A, those had clarifying.
-: I'm going to add the word legal.
-: That's right.
Which they proposed as a,
would be required under the...
security document.
-: I'm sorry, talking about 54A?
-: Correct.
-: On page 32.
-: That's page 32 of 65.
-: I'm good there.
-: Okay. And 56?
-: Yes.
-: Page 33 of 65. And 79A.
Stephen: Page 42.
-: Yes, I agree.
-: I'm good on that as well.
-: Okay, and then on the conclusion of law 15C.
Stephen: On page 48.
-: Thanks.
-: Yes.
-: Yes, I agree.
-: Excellent.
Now, just to get this clarification out of the way,
and then I'll open it up to you both.
Identify yourselves for the record please.
-: Yes, (indistinct) Ron Moss and Jeff Nydegger for ERCOT.
-: Great, on page 79 of 90 in your issuance letter,
item number seven, the letter states,
"The Subchapter in bonds may be issued
with an original issue discount,
additional credit enhancements,
or arrangements to enhance marketability provided
that the applicant," and there it stops.
What should that sentence end with?
Stephen: Ron, I'm sorry I gave you the N,
but it's just the same in the M.
-: Commissioner, I'm not prepared to answer that.
I'm gonna have to confer with one of my colleagues
who prepared that letter.
-: Okay, I will sort of leave that right now.
Can you find that out the next 10 minutes?
Jeff: Yes.
-: Fantastic.
Okay, with that, I'd kind of open it up for your thoughts
or concerns about any of the issues raised,
or if you were satisfied with those clarifications
that I proposed.
I'll table this item for a moment and then move on,
but I'll open it up from here.
-: So there were points, a variety of places
where I wanted to have a discussion with you all.
-: Sure.
-: And the first place was page number 12.
And that is the language in the order
that refers to the priority of the allocation
of the bond proceeds.
And in the original order that was filed
with ERCOT's application, there was language that said
that the default balance is an amount not
to exceed 800 million and will consist of any combination
of the following amounts as may be determined by ERCOT
at the time of the issuance
of the Subchapter M bond proceeds.
And then it goes on to list, you know, number one,
that the amount that would be allocated
to the short pay wholesale market participants
and to the amount that would be allocated to the,
to replenish the CRR fund,
and then three being the implementation costs.
In our prior discussion on the priority
of how ERCOT will use the bond proceeds, I believe,
at least from my perspective, that we gave a direction
to staff to pursue the recommended priority
that ERCOT had proffered in their application,
which was paying the implementation costs first,
and then the short pay market participants,
and then third, replenishing the CRR funds.
I think, you know, that any combination language
to me causes some uncertainty as to how the bond proceeds
will be used to pay those three different categories
that are statutorily required under the definition
of the uplift balance, and so we,
at least from my perspective, had given,
had approved ERCOT's proposal,
and I just think the order needs
to be a little bit more clear so that there is certainty
as to how those (indistinct) proceeds will be allocated
as recommended by ERCOT in the order.
-: That was consistent with what we requested,
and that was my understanding
of what the Commissioner approved as well, Commissioner.
-: And that would be upfront costs
and debt retirement first, customers second,
and then replenish the CRR fund third?
-: Yes, Commissioner.
-: And if you get a waiver on the debt retirement,
then it would be upfront cost, customers, and CRR funds.
The waiver, if you get a waiver on the existing debt,
you would continue to follow that?
-: We would continue to follow that,
except that $45 million or 50, whatever it turns out to be,
would go to replenish the CRR account funds at that point,
rather than going to the market participants.
-: And why is that?
-: Because we are providing,
the amount that we have reserved,
the 318 or 418, whatever way you wanna look at it,
is enough to pay off the market participants
that were short paid by the competitive market participants
that have left the market.
The remaining, as I understand it,
the remaining short pays are from Brazos and Rayburn.
And so we don't wanna use the money
to pay their share of it.
We wanna use these monies
to replenish the CRR account holder fund.
-: That sounds right to me.
-: That's right, so based on your feedback
and the feedback I provided, I would ask staff
to modify that language, to take out any combination
and just more directly state that the default balance is
an amount not to exceed 800 million that will consist
of the following amounts proposed by ERCOT
and lay out exactly what ERCOT proposed,
which was the implementation costs,
short pay mark participants,
and the CRR account replenishment.
-: Okay, and that still provides, again, flexibility.
Is that how ERCOT sees that?
Ron: Yes.
-: Okay, I'm good with that.
-: Okay, next, with respect to ERCOT's proposal
to specify the specific types of collateral
in the order, which are deposits and letters of credit.
-: Where are you on the?
-: I'm sorry, page 63. Finding of fact, 63.
-: Finding of fact 63. Got it.
-: I think that's the first place
ERCOT's proposed changes appear.
Ron: I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Which finding of fact was it?
-: Finding of fact 63, or perhaps it's...
Actually, see here. I think it's throughout the order.
Basically, there's at least maybe two, three references
where, instead of collateral, ERCOT has proposed a change
to switch to a deposit or a letter of credit.
I recognize that, you know,
ERCOT maybe wanna specify the specific collateral,
but I think, since ERCOT's application
and the evidentiary record has always just referred
to collateral in general, I think the order should continue
to read collateral and just understand,
provide ERCOT with the flexibility
to require whatever it is they want as a form of collateral.
I don't wanna specify in the order
because I think leaving it general may give them flexibility
in the future, may give ERCOT flexibility in the future
to use other forms if necessary.
And you would have the flexibility,
ERCOT would have the flexibility to specify whatever form
of collateral they would want from the QSE.
-: Commissioner, I believe that's going to be okay,
if you don't mind my asking Sean Taylor,
the ERCOT Chief Financial Officer, to come up
and give his view on that.
Lori: Sounds good.
-: Sean, I'm in agreement with her, just so you know.
Before you say anything. (people laughing)
-: Sean Taylor with ERCOT. Yes, that's fine.
I appreciate that flexibility.
Will: Great.
-: All right. Thank you, Sean.
And then, on page 48.
-: Finding of fact or page?
-: Page.
There is...
It's conclusion of law
15C.
And it talks about how quickly ERCOT has
to remit the default charge payments
from QSEs and CRR holders to the comptroller,
and ERCOT has suggested adding language
about how ERCOT is required to remit the payment
to the indenture trustee for application
to amounts owed to the comptroller.
And so I think we just need to get a clarification
from ERCOT on the mechanics of how this will work,
you know, no later than 30 days would
that capture both ERCOT remitting that payment
to the indenture trustee for the application
to the amounts owed to the comptroller,
who would then provide that to the comptroller.
I'm just trying to make sure that all of
that can be done within 30 days.
-: Okay.
-: Yes, Commissioner. That is correct.
So ERCOT will remit the money to the trustee,
and then the trustee will release that money
when it's due to the comptroller.
-: Okay. All within 30 days?
-: The amount will go to the trustee within the 30 days.
From the trustee to the comptroller will depend
on the payment requirements of the (indistinct).
So it will be in the manner which is necessary
to meet the debt requirements,
which is why we asked for the clarification
because ERCOT will remit it to the trustee within 30 days,
but if it's set up as a payment cycle, six months notes,
then it wouldn't necessarily make it all the way
to the comptroller within those 30 days.
-: Okay. That's helpful.
I just wanna make sure we understand
what the 30 days is tied to.
The order clearly sets that out with respect
to how the money will flow back to the comptroller.
But, you know, if the indenture trustees remittance
of that money to the comptroller is set
by other requirements, I wanna give you flexibility
to make it all work.
I just wanna ake sure the order's clear
as to what falls under the 30 days.
And so I think that clarification is helpful.
Does that give you enough guidance?
Stephen: Well, it's confusing in
that the statute requires the 30 day period
to payment be made to the comptroller.
-: Okay.
So that would include the indenture trustee
also remitting the...
-: And passing that money on to,
so you're saying, per the statute,
it requires the comptroller
to receive any monies received by ERCOT within 30 days.
-: May I just add the trustee is an intermediary
for the benefit of the comptroller
as the holder of the bonds.
-: Okay, that's an important clarification.
I think that relationship could capture the comptroller
and fall within the statutory requirement potentially.
Stephen: If you so decide.
-: Well, so-
-: But under this language that we're considering, it could.
Stephen: So you're good with this.
-: I think that clarification is important
because we wanna make sure we comply
with statutory requirement, and given the fact
that the indenture trustee is an intermediary
for the comptroller is essentially like
you're remitting the money within 30 days
to the comptroller.
-: We'll add that phrase in here
as a parenthetical intermediary of the comptroller.
-: Yes, that's helpful. Thank you.
And I believe that is-
On page 16, there was a clarification that staff wanted.
Ordering paragraph number 33.
And that was respect to my request
at the open meeting regarding what amendments
and agreements would be filed in the compliance packet,
and their question was whether or not the amendments that,
the amendment to the agreement that resulted
in a cost increase would be the only amendments filed
in the compliance packet,
or should we have all amendments and agreements?
I would prefer to stay broad and capture all the amendments.
-: Same here.
-: I'm sorry.
-: Good with all amendments going into that repository?
-: Yes, absolutely.
-: That's the requirement in the other order.
We'll make the two provisions be consistent.
-: And that is all I have with respect to the order.
-: Yeah, I have a couple, probably more questions
since I'm not a finance bond expert
by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, I do have a question, I guess,
for staff as well as the other Commissioners.
And I just, I didn't understand why we,
so this was on page 36.
So this deals with collateral.
I think in the other proceeding,
we did two months and this is four months.
And I just wanted to, I don't know the difference,
quite frankly, between the two,
if four months is okay for this one and two months is better
for the other one, but I wanted to point out that there is,
if it's okay to have both, and I'm fine with it.
I just wanted to make sure that we were okay with that.
-: So four months was proposed in this one.
I don't think any party really challenged it.
And the other one, there was some parties
that argued less than four months was better.
And I'll leave it to ERCOT to explain why.
-: The reason is because of the timing of the settlement.
So for the main order, Subchapter M, the settlements don't,
final settlements aren't until 55 days
after the operating day, and so you need more time
to figure out if you've got a default or not.
On the other one,
it's that the settlements are much quicker,
and so you don't need as much time
for the collateral is my understanding, but Sean, you could.
-: That's a correct statement.
So it's that additional two months in effect.
-: It sounds legit.
On page 45. So I just have a question about this.
This was in here initially, but the extension,
if there's a disruption in the financial markets
that the United States, so it says,
"However, if there's a disruption in the financial markets
in the United States at any time during the effective period
of disorder, it's also appropriate
for the 24 month effective period to automatically extend
to a date that is 90 days after such disruption."
My question is...
do you really think it's gonna take 24 months
to get these bonds sold and back to the market participants
in this process?
That would, that's a concern to me if it's gonna take
that long, but if I'm reading it wrong
or don't understand it correctly, please tell me.
-: Well, like you, Commissioner,
I'm not a bond specialist either.
Mr. Nydegger could probably give you a better idea on that.
-: For the initial sale of the bonds
to the comptroller's office, it will not take 24 months.
It will be a direct placement with the comptroller's office.
We are contemplating a refinancing
that could take longer than that,
depending on structuring factors that we are exploring
with our financial advisors at that time.
But the initial placement will take place
with the comptroller, we intend before the end of this year.
-: And the concern would be if,
the concern would be the financing, refinancing,
so that the refinancing would take place at a certain time.
And if there's a financial disruption
after the initial bonds are sold,
that you would get more time to do that
in order to get the best price for refinancing.
-: That's correct.
-: Good clarification. Thank you.
But you can commit that it is not gonna take 24 months
to sell the bonds initially?
-: Yes, sir.
Jimmy: Thank you.
-: So my question on this issue is,
because from what I understand, your proposal is
if the disruption lasts three months,
then you get to add the three months to the 24 month period?
Jeff: That's correct.
-: Plus then, the 90 day extension, the backend,
I'm sorry, to automatically be extended
to 90 days after the date of such disruption.
-: That's correct.
-: So I think that's correct when you talk
about ERCOT (indistinct), the proposed changes.
They didn't make the same proposed changes in this order,
but if we're gonna be consistent, I think we need to.
And so that concept of adding the period
of the disruption plus 90 days
to extend the 24 month period was clearly made
in the other one.
Not so clearly here, but consistency should prevail.
Lori: I agree.
-: So how do we clarify a disruption or who declares it?
-: There are industry standards that are used
to describe those disruptions.
SIFMA, for example, will publish
a publish form purchase agreement
for the sale of securities that describes those disruptions.
It can be a shutdown of the New York Stock Exchange
or a major terroristic event
that shuts down financial markets.
But the concept is if these markets are disrupted,
there may be changes to the bond markets
that we might need to react to.
The rating agencies are reacting to that
and how they evaluate securities after those disruptors.
-: Okay, so it's not ERCOT saying
that we think there's a disruption,
and therefore, we get 90 more days?
-: Yeah, there's a very common industry standard for that.
-: And I think I have one more.
This was on...
page 17.
The question was how much...
So the priority, ERCOT receives a waiver for funds allocated
to the retirement or refund
of existing debt will be reallocated
to replenish the CRR receipts.
Stephen, can you help me on this one?
There was an issue about upfront costs or-
We went through it so quick. I want to-
I'm not helping you help me.
-: So the upfront costs are encountered in the amount
basically that the bonds are being issued for.
So it's the principle in the the ongoing, the upfront cost.
Is that what you're asking about?
The ongoing costs are gonna be added into the debt,
not (indistinct) charge in this one.
-: The default charge?
-: If you may, the way I understood this issue was that
in ERCOT's application, as they stated,
the implementation costs that are allowed to be included
in the default balance would consist
of the costs that ERCOT could potentially incur
for retiring or refunding existing debt,
and that would be captured in the default balance
and would be subject to, I guess, default charges as well.
But their ongoing cost for,
associated with this transaction would be not included
in the uplift balance, but would be part
of the default charge, charges that ERCOT assesses.
So if ERCOT doesn't need that anymore ongoing cost,
to incur any more ongoing costs,
then they just wouldn't be captured in the default charges,
but if the implementation costs related to retiring
and refunding debt were lower
than ERCOT originally estimated,
those amounts would be returned to the CRR account.
-: That's a correct summary, so you have,
if for some reason the upfront cost estimate,
if the upfront costs differ, then we would make that,
from what we put in the issuance advice letter,
then we would make that adjustment to the ongoing cost
to credit that amount back or recover the additional amount
if there was a difference.
-: So I will leave that.
-: That's the recovery of those fees, right?
Sean: Yes, it's if, say it goes both ways.
So it's, in effect, a true up.
-: Okay, I'm fine with that.
-: Okay, me too. Good.
-: I think the proposed language as written is good
with me as well.
-: Okay, good. Any more?
-: No, that's all I have.
-: Mr. Nydegger? Could you please finish the sentence for me?
-: Yes. Been flipping pages, let me get back there.
Okay, so this in reference to ordering paragraph 23,
which discusses criteria for credit enhancements.
So what this paragraph is referring to,
ERCOT is required at the time of issuing these bonds,
if there is a credit enhancement,
that they provide information that's sufficient to document
that those enhancements are worthwhile in comparison
to their relative benefits so
that the Commission can determine
that we're achieving the lowest overall cost.
So to complete that sentence, it should say
that enhanced marketability provided
that the applicant has provided sufficient information
to the Commission's designated representative
to evaluate the relative benefits of such arrangements.
-: Should it not also include the language expected
to provide benefits greater than their costs?
-: We would be comfortable with that addition.
Will: Okay, Stephen, if you could read that back to me
in its entirety on that sentence
so we capture it for the record.
-: Well, sir, I was kind of hoping to listen
to the transcript.
(all laughing)
Arrange enhanced marketability provided that the applicant,
and I'm freelancing here now,
but I'm gonna look to the ordering paragraph perhaps to...
to copy that language.
ERCOT provides the information
to the Commissioner's representative
to demonstrate that such arrangements are
reasonably expected to provide benefits greater
than the cost.
Will: Is that good for you, sir?
-: Yes.
Jimmy: Good, me too. Good.
-: David, I hope you're writing this down.
-: I hope somebody's listening to this
other than everybody out in the gallery here.
With that, I think that closes issues subject to, yup.
Name and for the record.
-: Chad Seely with ERCOT.
I wanted to go back to the collateral discussion
that Commissioner Cobos changed the language from deposits
and letter of credits just because Jeff was out of the room.
And there is a specific reason on why we asked
for that language so that it didn't create confusion
being held by the trustee.
So as long, and I agree with the flexibility comment
because we don't know, 30 years over time
that we wanna lock ourselves into that.
But I think having language that made it clear
that the collateral will be held by ERCOT would be helpful
as an additional phrase.
Just "held by ERCOT" would address that issue.
Otherwise, there's other references
in the order about collateral going to the trustee,
and ERCOT does not attend for this cash or letter of credit
to be pledged to the trustee.
And so changing that generically to collateral could create
some confusion as we go through the financing part.
But if it had just "collateral held by ERCOT,"
I think that would address that issue.
And then we're gonna clarify,
obviously, we're moving with protocol changes
and that'll be the framework that will further amplify
those provisions, but we don't wanna get into a situation
where, as we go through the financing mechanism,
that the trustee or other parties believe
that that should be pledged in the arrangement
because that's not our expectation at this point.
-: Yeah, so that would be changed in two places, correct?
For conformity.
-: I think it was in finding of fact 63, I believe.
-: Yeah, that's one place.
-: It's maybe a couple of places,
but wherever it is in the order,
I think adding ERCOT's proposed language
is a reasonable approach and giving ERCOT the flexibility
to collect whatever collateral it needs,
specific form and laying it out in protocol.
-: And that it will be held by ERCOT, yeah.
-: So we would put the language, it currently reads,
"Market participants to post collateral,"
and we would insert there "with ERCOT."
"Post collateral with ERCOT."
-: Yeah.
-: Post collateral to ERCOT?
-: Post collateral to ERCOT and be held by ERCOT.
I just wanna make it clear
that we're gonna be the custodian
of holding that collateral.
And that'll be the same issue that's in Nebraska as well.
'Cause we highlighted the same theme in the Nebraska,
the Subchapter in part of our comments.
Jimmy: Let's see how this shakes out.
-: I agree with the comment about flexibility.
-: Okay.
Okay.
Any further discussion on this issue?
Okay.
So at this time I would entertain a motion
to approve the proposed debt obligation order,
consistent with our discussion,
and ask OPDM to make any corrections,
clarifications, and stylistic changes deemed necessary.
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All those in favor, say aye.
-: [Will, Jimmy, and Lori] Aye.
-: All those opposed, same sign. Hearing none, motion passes.
(gavel bangs)
Okay, next up, agenda item number two,
docket number 52322,
application of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
for a debt obligation order under PURA Chapter 39.
Subchapter N in request for good cause exception.
I'll move through it similar to what we just did.
Similar to the previous docket,
there were some very good clarifications
and corrections suggested.
I believe, as I did in the last docket,
suggested substantive changes are unnecessary.
However, I believe that clarifications
that ERCOT had suggested in their recent filing
on finding of facts numbers 147, 180, 181,
and 212,
and to the ordering paragraph number 88 are acceptable.
I do have one question for ERCOT, so glad y'all stayed up.
On paragraph number 61, on ordering paragraph number 61.
So did you intend
for the Commission's designated representative
to notify ERCOT on the first business day
after the Commission's receipt of the issuance order?
What was the intention there?
-: No, I think that, I believe that should be...
the fifth business day.
-: My recollection is that we originally had a week,
so that would be five business days,
although I think we were flexible on that.
-: I thought the Commission had to make their decision
within four business days.
Will: I'll give you a moment to gather your thoughts.
-: I'll try and find the right piece of paper. Thank you.
So 61 is when the Commission's representative
must notify archive and Commission after the receipt,
whether after the receipt or the issuance advice letter,
whether that the issuance will be in compliance.
Then the Commission, I believe, elsewhere,
if the Commission does not act within four business days
to stop it, it goes forth.
So I mean, this date's got to be preceding that four days
and it's, the way it was originally written,
it just said the business day after.
We thought it meant first. We thought we'd clarify it.
Then we thought we'd make sure y'all agree with that.
-: We are okay with fourth business day.
-: First business day.
-: Yeah, I think one business day is fine.
It's really the burden on the Commission
that's the issue here.
And I understand your point about if-
-: Well, that's what you're (indistinct).
I mean, there is an issue about whether
that's too quick for our designated representative,
whoever they are, to communicate that to us, but.
I don't know who that is and can't ask them.
-: I just need to know for the purposes of the business here,
the business end of this, what's needed.
-: Our representative's gonna be involved in all this.
I would assume that they know at the time
whether they think it complies or not.
-: Well, if we said the second business day,
it seems like that would give you a little more time,
but it would still be an expeditious process.
I'm not, there may be other ways to do this,
but that's one suggestion.
Stephen: I'm good with two days.
-: Should I look over at Thomas here?
I mean, you're on the functional end of this decision.
Thomas: Thank you, Commissioners.
Thomas Gleason for staff.
We have no concerns.
-: Okay, two business days. Everybody okay with that?
-: Yes. -: Great.
Now just to back up similar to the way we did it before,
do you wanna walk through each one of those
that I just referenced or have you kind of cross-referenced?
-: If we can.
-: Yeah. Let's do it.
Number 147, finding of fact number 147.
Related costs.
-: Oh, I'm good there.
-: And then 180.
Again, suggested change from ERCOT legal
rather than scheduled, legal final payment seemed necessary
for their purposes.
I believe the next one might be 181.
Stephen: That's the same thing.
-: Sorry, yeah. Same thing.
Yep, and then 212.
-: Yeah, I do have a question on this.
I just, again, not being a bond person, question for ERCOT,
is lead book running underwriter a common term?
-: Yes, it is.
It refers to the co-manager of an underwriting syndicate.
It will be one underwriter or two underwriters, typically,
of a team of six or seven or eight underwriters
for a security of this size.
-: Do you know, Stephen, is this a term that we've used
in other securitizations or is this new to this docket and-
-: Well, so I can't tell you whether it is used in the order,
but it is certainly a term that I believe I first learned
in those previous securitizations.
It didn't catch me off guard when I read it.
Jimmy: Okay.
-: I'm good with it.
And then ordering paragraph number 88
on page 69 of 72.
And conforms to what we just discussed
in the following proceeding, the 90 days after.
-: And just to be clear, when we approve
this proposed language that ERCOT has proffered to us,
we are agreeing to bake in the period of disruption
and then the 90 days.
-: Correct.
Because again, that's a defined period in terms
of your industry practice.
Jeff: That's correct.
-: Just to make sure we're staying consistent
with both cases.
-: And so that's what I had, and I'll open it up to you
if you've got individual issues.
-: Well, so we'd throw in there, too,
the whole issue about the collateral to be held by ERCOT
that we talked in the other one.
I don't remember which he findings they are in this one,
but we'll find them.
-: At least finding of fact number 190 speaks to it,
and there may be other portions of the order.
-: And the goal is to make those consistent?
Stephen: Yes, sir.
-: One remaining issue that I had was on page 71
on whether or not we would admit the settlement agreement
into the evidentiary record.
I would propose that we do.
That's common practice that we utilize here
at the Commission to admit those items
into the evidentiary record.
We have done so in the past anyway.
That's kind of our call on it.
-: We have did all kinds of things
in records of several dockets.
-: Is there any procedural delay that would result from that?
Stephen: No.
Nope.
-: Then I'm okay with it.
-: Me too.
-: Great.
Anything else, Commissioner?
-: I have none. -: No.
-: Fantastic.
Now that our discussion has concluded,
I will entertain a motion to approve the-
-: And the same changes to the issuance advice letter
that we discussed in the prior docket,
item number seven on page...
Credit, dealing with credit enhancement.
Will: It's the same thing, is it not?
-: Yes, the exact same thing.
-: So I would say that we need to conform that
to the previous language we used in the previous proceeding.
-: That tracks to ordering paragraph 52 in the Subchapter N.
-: Did you also need to admit the settlement testimony?
-: It's been admitted in this ordering paragraph already.
-: Good. All issues complete.
I will now entertain a motion
to approve the proposed debt obligation order consistent
with our discussion and ask OPDM
to make any corrections, clarifications,
and stylistic changes deemed necessary.
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All those in favor, say aye,
-: [Will, Jimmy, and Lori] Aye.
-: All those opposed, same sign. Hearing none, motion passes.
(gavel bangs)
At this time, I don't feel that we need
to take up docket number, item number three,
docket number 52364.
Therefore, this meeting, pending any other business,
this meeting of the Public Utility Commission is
hereby adjourned at 11:59 AM on October 13th, 2021.
(gavel bangs)