WEBVTT
00:00:25.661 --> 00:00:27.260
(gavel bangs)
00:00:27.260 --> 00:00:28.910
This meeting of the
Public Utility Commission
00:00:28.910 --> 00:00:31.110
of Texas will come to
order to consider matters
00:00:31.110 --> 00:00:33.130
that have been duly posted
with the Secretary of State
00:00:33.130 --> 00:00:36.380
of Texas for October 13th, 2021.
00:00:36.380 --> 00:00:37.680
My name is Will McAdams.
00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:40.100
I'm joined today by
Commissioner Lori Cobos
00:00:40.100 --> 00:00:41.823
and Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty.
00:00:43.120 --> 00:00:45.640
At this time, we will...
00:00:47.350 --> 00:00:51.730
The first item to be taken up
is agenda item number one,
00:00:51.730 --> 00:00:53.910
docket number 52321,
00:00:53.910 --> 00:00:56.840
application of the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas
00:00:56.840 --> 00:01:00.200
for a debt obligation order
under PURA Chapter 39,
00:01:00.200 --> 00:01:03.853
Subchapter M, in request
for a good cause exception.
00:01:05.150 --> 00:01:08.350
Now there were a number
of proposed corrections
00:01:08.350 --> 00:01:10.850
and exceptions received
from stakeholders
00:01:10.850 --> 00:01:12.610
over the last days.
00:01:12.610 --> 00:01:14.500
There were some very good clarifications
00:01:14.500 --> 00:01:16.173
and corrections suggested,
00:01:17.530 --> 00:01:21.750
but I believe suggested substantive
changes are unnecessary.
00:01:21.750 --> 00:01:22.583
My view.
00:01:23.810 --> 00:01:26.610
However, I believe that
some of the clarifications
00:01:26.610 --> 00:01:30.040
that ERCOT has proposed
could be acceptable.
00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:32.670
And if you're agreeable,
I'll sort of walked through
00:01:32.670 --> 00:01:37.670
those right now and get your thoughts.
00:01:37.890 --> 00:01:41.747
In the discussion section,
ERCOT proposed the use of phrase,
00:01:41.747 --> 00:01:45.550
"finding of a debt service reserve."
00:01:45.550 --> 00:01:50.040
I would propose
accepting that and the use
00:01:50.040 --> 00:01:53.223
of that phrase consistently
throughout the order.
00:01:54.370 --> 00:01:56.900
To me, that seemed like clarification
00:01:56.900 --> 00:01:59.040
that they simply needed
as they move forward
00:01:59.040 --> 00:02:03.233
with processing the actual security.
00:02:04.930 --> 00:02:06.764
And I'll just move through the others,
00:02:06.764 --> 00:02:09.070
and that way y'all can
follow up with your comments.
00:02:09.070 --> 00:02:12.350
I would also support ERCOT
suggested findings to fact
00:02:12.350 --> 00:02:16.987
of numbers 54A, 56, and 79A.
00:02:23.750 --> 00:02:26.580
And I would also accept
ERCOT clarification
00:02:26.580 --> 00:02:30.700
on QSEs and CRR account
holders in the conclusion
00:02:30.700 --> 00:02:32.943
of law 15C.
00:02:39.650 --> 00:02:41.390
And then I'm gonna pause there
00:02:41.390 --> 00:02:42.820
and kind of wait for discussion,
00:02:42.820 --> 00:02:45.460
but I have one more issue
that I'd like to call ERCOT
00:02:45.460 --> 00:02:49.373
to come up and clarify, and
that's in the issuance letter.
00:02:50.720 --> 00:02:52.620
So ERCOT, you're...
00:02:55.760 --> 00:02:56.760
getting the bullpen.
00:02:59.010 --> 00:03:00.470
So with those findings of fact,
00:03:00.470 --> 00:03:03.210
before I open it up to
ERCOT for clarification,
00:03:03.210 --> 00:03:06.200
any issues on those?
00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:10.197
And that's 54A, 56, and 79A.
00:03:12.856 --> 00:03:14.390
Mr. Glotfelty, do you have anything?
00:03:14.390 --> 00:03:15.690
I have nothing. I agree.
00:03:20.100 --> 00:03:21.280
I'm kind of pulling
them up right now.
00:03:21.280 --> 00:03:23.030
Sure. No, no,
no, take your time.
00:03:30.170 --> 00:03:33.110
And these were consistent
with adding funding
00:03:33.110 --> 00:03:34.310
of debt service reserve?
00:03:35.210 --> 00:03:36.043
Correct.
00:03:36.043 --> 00:03:39.630
Okay, yes. I agree
with the change.
00:03:41.330 --> 00:03:46.330
Yeah, and then on 54A, 56,
and 79A, those had clarifying.
00:03:58.730 --> 00:03:59.840
I'm going to add
the word legal.
00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:00.673
That's right.
00:04:04.450 --> 00:04:06.483
Which they proposed as a,
00:04:08.020 --> 00:04:09.590
would be required under the...
00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:14.203
security document.
00:04:18.510 --> 00:04:20.330
I'm sorry, talking about 54A?
00:04:20.330 --> 00:04:21.163
Correct.
00:04:23.059 --> 00:04:24.576
On page 32.
00:04:24.576 --> 00:04:26.590
That's page 32 of 65.
00:04:26.590 --> 00:04:27.423
I'm good there.
00:04:27.423 --> 00:04:29.533
Okay. And 56?
00:04:32.540 --> 00:04:33.373
Yes.
00:04:33.373 --> 00:04:36.933
Page 33 of 65. And 79A.
00:04:40.510 --> 00:04:41.510
Page 42.
00:04:44.320 --> 00:04:46.500
Yes, I agree.
00:04:46.500 --> 00:04:47.960
I'm good on that as well.
00:04:47.960 --> 00:04:51.700
Okay, and then on the
conclusion of law 15C.
00:04:53.006 --> 00:04:53.880
On page 48.
00:04:53.880 --> 00:04:54.713
Thanks.
00:05:09.060 --> 00:05:09.893
Yes.
00:05:13.630 --> 00:05:15.370
Yes, I agree.
00:05:15.370 --> 00:05:16.650
Excellent.
00:05:16.650 --> 00:05:19.110
Now, just to get this
clarification out of the way,
00:05:19.110 --> 00:05:21.323
and then I'll open it up to you both.
00:05:25.120 --> 00:05:27.213
Identify yourselves
for the record please.
00:05:28.730 --> 00:05:32.860
Yes, (indistinct) Ron Moss
and Jeff Nydegger for ERCOT.
00:05:32.860 --> 00:05:37.860
Great, on page 79 of
90 in your issuance letter,
00:05:40.760 --> 00:05:44.643
item number seven, the letter states,
00:05:45.557 --> 00:05:48.180
"The Subchapter in bonds may be issued
00:05:48.180 --> 00:05:50.600
with an original issue discount,
00:05:50.600 --> 00:05:53.350
additional credit enhancements,
00:05:53.350 --> 00:05:56.580
or arrangements to enhance
marketability provided
00:05:56.580 --> 00:06:00.370
that the applicant," and there it stops.
00:06:00.370 --> 00:06:02.263
What should that sentence end with?
00:06:04.890 --> 00:06:06.500
Ron, I'm
sorry I gave you the N,
00:06:06.500 --> 00:06:08.423
but it's just the same in the M.
00:06:21.780 --> 00:06:23.700
Commissioner, I'm not
prepared to answer that.
00:06:23.700 --> 00:06:26.060
I'm gonna have to confer
with one of my colleagues
00:06:26.060 --> 00:06:27.310
who prepared that letter.
00:06:28.270 --> 00:06:33.270
Okay, I will sort of
leave that right now.
00:06:33.690 --> 00:06:35.730
Can you find that out
the next 10 minutes?
00:06:35.730 --> 00:06:36.563
Yes.
00:06:36.563 --> 00:06:37.396
Fantastic.
00:06:39.540 --> 00:06:42.360
Okay, with that, I'd kind of
open it up for your thoughts
00:06:42.360 --> 00:06:44.450
or concerns about
any of the issues raised,
00:06:44.450 --> 00:06:47.670
or if you were satisfied
with those clarifications
00:06:47.670 --> 00:06:49.113
that I proposed.
00:06:52.150 --> 00:06:56.720
I'll table this item for a
moment and then move on,
00:06:56.720 --> 00:06:58.220
but I'll open it up from here.
00:07:00.160 --> 00:07:03.630
So there were points,
a variety of places
00:07:03.630 --> 00:07:08.310
where I wanted to have
a discussion with you all.
00:07:08.310 --> 00:07:09.143
Sure.
00:07:09.143 --> 00:07:13.123
And the first place
was page number 12.
00:07:17.470 --> 00:07:21.760
And that is the language in the order
00:07:21.760 --> 00:07:26.760
that refers to the
priority of the allocation
00:07:28.510 --> 00:07:29.723
of the bond proceeds.
00:07:31.690 --> 00:07:36.330
And in the original order that was filed
00:07:36.330 --> 00:07:39.650
with ERCOT's application,
there was language that said
00:07:39.650 --> 00:07:42.210
that the default
balance is an amount not
00:07:42.210 --> 00:07:46.240
to exceed 800 million and
will consist of any combination
00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:50.310
of the following amounts as
may be determined by ERCOT
00:07:50.310 --> 00:07:52.280
at the time of the issuance
00:07:52.280 --> 00:07:55.020
of the Subchapter M bond proceeds.
00:07:55.020 --> 00:07:58.043
And then it goes on to
list, you know, number one,
00:07:58.043 --> 00:07:59.840
that the amount that would be allocated
00:07:59.840 --> 00:08:01.800
to the short pay wholesale
market participants
00:08:01.800 --> 00:08:06.383
and to the amount that
would be allocated to the,
00:08:07.970 --> 00:08:09.610
to replenish the CRR fund,
00:08:09.610 --> 00:08:12.620
and then three being
the implementation costs.
00:08:12.620 --> 00:08:15.330
In our prior discussion on the priority
00:08:15.330 --> 00:08:18.800
of how ERCOT will use
the bond proceeds, I believe,
00:08:18.800 --> 00:08:21.590
at least from my perspective,
that we gave a direction
00:08:21.590 --> 00:08:26.590
to staff to pursue the
recommended priority
00:08:26.690 --> 00:08:30.560
that ERCOT had
proffered in their application,
00:08:30.560 --> 00:08:34.310
which was paying the
implementation costs first,
00:08:34.310 --> 00:08:37.320
and then the short
pay market participants,
00:08:37.320 --> 00:08:40.053
and then third,
replenishing the CRR funds.
00:08:41.100 --> 00:08:44.900
I think, you know, that
any combination language
00:08:44.900 --> 00:08:49.900
to me causes some uncertainty
as to how the bond proceeds
00:08:50.640 --> 00:08:54.490
will be used to pay those
three different categories
00:08:54.490 --> 00:08:57.510
that are statutorily
required under the definition
00:08:57.510 --> 00:09:00.350
of the uplift balance, and so we,
00:09:00.350 --> 00:09:03.160
at least from my perspective, had given,
00:09:03.160 --> 00:09:06.460
had approved ERCOT's proposal,
00:09:06.460 --> 00:09:07.790
and I just think the order needs
00:09:07.790 --> 00:09:10.140
to be a little bit more clear
so that there is certainty
00:09:10.140 --> 00:09:13.010
as to how those (indistinct)
proceeds will be allocated
00:09:13.010 --> 00:09:17.240
as recommended by ERCOT in the order.
00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:19.627
That was consistent
with what we requested,
00:09:19.627 --> 00:09:20.460
and that was my understanding
00:09:20.460 --> 00:09:22.773
of what the Commissioner
approved as well, Commissioner.
00:09:24.040 --> 00:09:25.840
And that would be upfront costs
00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:29.970
and debt retirement
first, customers second,
00:09:29.970 --> 00:09:32.290
and then replenish the CRR fund third?
00:09:32.290 --> 00:09:33.123
Yes, Commissioner.
00:09:33.123 --> 00:09:38.060
And if you get a waiver
on the debt retirement,
00:09:38.060 --> 00:09:40.860
then it would be upfront cost,
customers, and CRR funds.
00:09:41.710 --> 00:09:46.710
The waiver, if you get a
waiver on the existing debt,
00:09:48.270 --> 00:09:50.070
you would continue to follow that?
00:09:50.070 --> 00:09:51.769
We would continue
to follow that,
00:09:51.769 --> 00:09:54.510
except that $45 million or
50, whatever it turns out to be,
00:09:54.510 --> 00:09:58.740
would go to replenish the
CRR account funds at that point,
00:09:58.740 --> 00:10:02.670
rather than going to
the market participants.
00:10:02.670 --> 00:10:03.570
And why is that?
00:10:05.150 --> 00:10:08.953
Because we are providing,
00:10:09.895 --> 00:10:11.973
the amount that we have reserved,
00:10:13.160 --> 00:10:18.160
the 318 or 418, whatever
way you wanna look at it,
00:10:18.620 --> 00:10:23.620
is enough to pay off
the market participants
00:10:23.870 --> 00:10:26.360
that were short paid by the
competitive market participants
00:10:26.360 --> 00:10:27.640
that have left the market.
00:10:27.640 --> 00:10:29.180
The remaining, as I understand it,
00:10:29.180 --> 00:10:33.410
the remaining short pays
are from Brazos and Rayburn.
00:10:33.410 --> 00:10:36.740
And so we don't wanna use the money
00:10:36.740 --> 00:10:38.090
to pay their share of it.
00:10:38.090 --> 00:10:39.330
We wanna use these monies
00:10:39.330 --> 00:10:42.712
to replenish the CRR
account holder fund.
00:10:42.712 --> 00:10:44.919
That sounds right to me.
00:10:44.919 --> 00:10:47.960
That's right, so
based on your feedback
00:10:47.960 --> 00:10:50.960
and the feedback I
provided, I would ask staff
00:10:50.960 --> 00:10:54.610
to modify that language,
to take out any combination
00:10:54.610 --> 00:10:59.610
and just more directly state
that the default balance is
00:10:59.610 --> 00:11:02.050
an amount not to exceed
800 million that will consist
00:11:02.050 --> 00:11:05.840
of the following amounts
proposed by ERCOT
00:11:07.690 --> 00:11:09.900
and lay out exactly what ERCOT proposed,
00:11:09.900 --> 00:11:11.770
which was the implementation costs,
00:11:11.770 --> 00:11:13.331
short pay mark participants,
00:11:13.331 --> 00:11:16.073
and the CRR account replenishment.
00:11:16.950 --> 00:11:21.793
Okay, and that still
provides, again, flexibility.
00:11:24.515 --> 00:11:26.253
Is that how ERCOT sees that?
00:11:26.253 --> 00:11:27.092
Yes.
00:11:27.092 --> 00:11:29.342
Okay, I'm good with that.
00:11:31.293 --> 00:11:36.293
Okay, next, with respect
to ERCOT's proposal
00:11:36.960 --> 00:11:41.650
to specify the specific
types of collateral
00:11:41.650 --> 00:11:45.643
in the order, which are
deposits and letters of credit.
00:11:47.920 --> 00:11:49.160
Where are you on the?
00:11:49.160 --> 00:11:52.870
I'm sorry, page 63.
Finding of fact, 63.
00:11:52.870 --> 00:11:54.323
Finding of fact 63. Got it.
00:11:56.886 --> 00:11:58.500
I think that's the first place
00:11:58.500 --> 00:12:00.673
ERCOT's proposed changes appear.
00:12:09.290 --> 00:12:10.250
I'm sorry, Commissioner.
00:12:10.250 --> 00:12:12.530
Which finding of fact was it?
00:12:12.530 --> 00:12:15.790
Finding of fact
63, or perhaps it's...
00:12:21.440 --> 00:12:25.020
Actually, see here. I think
it's throughout the order.
00:12:25.020 --> 00:12:27.940
Basically, there's at least
maybe two, three references
00:12:27.940 --> 00:12:32.300
where, instead of collateral,
ERCOT has proposed a change
00:12:32.300 --> 00:12:35.883
to switch to a deposit
or a letter of credit.
00:12:37.640 --> 00:12:39.190
I recognize that, you know,
00:12:39.190 --> 00:12:41.530
ERCOT maybe wanna
specify the specific collateral,
00:12:41.530 --> 00:12:45.520
but I think, since ERCOT's application
00:12:45.520 --> 00:12:47.780
and the evidentiary record
has always just referred
00:12:47.780 --> 00:12:51.270
to collateral in general, I
think the order should continue
00:12:51.270 --> 00:12:54.880
to read collateral and just understand,
00:12:54.880 --> 00:12:56.270
provide ERCOT with the flexibility
00:12:56.270 --> 00:12:59.440
to require whatever it is they
want as a form of collateral.
00:12:59.440 --> 00:13:01.150
I don't wanna specify in the order
00:13:02.010 --> 00:13:05.630
because I think leaving it
general may give them flexibility
00:13:05.630 --> 00:13:08.210
in the future, may give
ERCOT flexibility in the future
00:13:08.210 --> 00:13:10.053
to use other forms if necessary.
00:13:11.302 --> 00:13:12.500
And you would have the flexibility,
00:13:12.500 --> 00:13:15.420
ERCOT would have the
flexibility to specify whatever form
00:13:15.420 --> 00:13:17.823
of collateral they would
want from the QSE.
00:13:20.470 --> 00:13:22.610
Commissioner, I believe
that's going to be okay,
00:13:22.610 --> 00:13:24.950
if you don't mind my asking Sean Taylor,
00:13:24.950 --> 00:13:27.080
the ERCOT Chief
Financial Officer, to come up
00:13:27.080 --> 00:13:28.120
and give his view on that.
00:13:28.120 --> 00:13:29.073
Sounds good.
00:13:33.720 --> 00:13:36.429
Sean, I'm in agreement
with her, just so you know.
00:13:36.429 --> 00:13:39.430
Before you say anything.
(people laughing)
00:13:39.430 --> 00:13:43.210
Sean Taylor with
ERCOT. Yes, that's fine.
00:13:43.210 --> 00:13:44.630
I appreciate that flexibility.
00:13:44.630 --> 00:13:45.490
Great.
00:13:45.490 --> 00:13:46.940
All right. Thank you, Sean.
00:13:48.037 --> 00:13:50.213
And then, on page 48.
00:13:52.430 --> 00:13:53.910
Finding of fact or page?
00:13:53.910 --> 00:13:54.743
Page.
00:14:00.770 --> 00:14:02.250
There is...
00:14:04.320 --> 00:14:06.770
It's conclusion of law
00:14:10.170 --> 00:14:11.003
15C.
00:14:13.750 --> 00:14:17.410
And it talks about how quickly ERCOT has
00:14:17.410 --> 00:14:21.540
to remit the default charge payments
00:14:21.540 --> 00:14:25.860
from QSEs and CRR
holders to the comptroller,
00:14:25.860 --> 00:14:28.690
and ERCOT has suggested adding language
00:14:28.690 --> 00:14:32.150
about how ERCOT is
required to remit the payment
00:14:32.150 --> 00:14:35.100
to the indenture trustee for application
00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:38.000
to amounts owed to the comptroller.
00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:40.280
And so I think we just
need to get a clarification
00:14:40.280 --> 00:14:44.870
from ERCOT on the
mechanics of how this will work,
00:14:44.870 --> 00:14:46.980
you know, no later than 30 days would
00:14:46.980 --> 00:14:51.077
that capture both ERCOT
remitting that payment
00:14:52.900 --> 00:14:56.550
to the indenture trustee
for the application
00:14:56.550 --> 00:14:58.930
to the amounts owed to the comptroller,
00:14:58.930 --> 00:15:02.200
who would then provide
that to the comptroller.
00:15:02.200 --> 00:15:03.690
I'm just trying to make sure that all of
00:15:03.690 --> 00:15:05.587
that can be done within 30 days.
00:15:05.587 --> 00:15:06.420
Okay.
00:15:07.440 --> 00:15:09.010
Yes, Commissioner.
That is correct.
00:15:09.010 --> 00:15:13.860
So ERCOT will remit
the money to the trustee,
00:15:13.860 --> 00:15:16.810
and then the trustee
will release that money
00:15:16.810 --> 00:15:18.553
when it's due to the comptroller.
00:15:19.570 --> 00:15:21.083
Okay. All within 30 days?
00:15:22.180 --> 00:15:26.220
The amount will go to the
trustee within the 30 days.
00:15:26.220 --> 00:15:28.240
From the trustee to the
comptroller will depend
00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:30.550
on the payment
requirements of the (indistinct).
00:15:31.830 --> 00:15:34.750
So it will be in the
manner which is necessary
00:15:34.750 --> 00:15:36.773
to meet the debt requirements,
00:15:39.090 --> 00:15:41.750
which is why we asked
for the clarification
00:15:41.750 --> 00:15:45.680
because ERCOT will remit it
to the trustee within 30 days,
00:15:45.680 --> 00:15:50.080
but if it's set up as a payment
cycle, six months notes,
00:15:50.080 --> 00:15:52.280
then it wouldn't necessarily
make it all the way
00:15:52.280 --> 00:15:54.860
to the comptroller within those 30 days.
00:15:54.860 --> 00:15:57.350
Okay. That's helpful.
00:15:57.350 --> 00:15:59.610
I just wanna make sure we understand
00:15:59.610 --> 00:16:01.350
what the 30 days is tied to.
00:16:01.350 --> 00:16:04.610
The order clearly sets
that out with respect
00:16:04.610 --> 00:16:06.990
to how the money will
flow back to the comptroller.
00:16:06.990 --> 00:16:11.660
But, you know, if the
indenture trustees remittance
00:16:11.660 --> 00:16:12.910
of that money to the comptroller is set
00:16:12.910 --> 00:16:14.830
by other requirements, I
wanna give you flexibility
00:16:14.830 --> 00:16:15.740
to make it all work.
00:16:15.740 --> 00:16:17.570
I just wanna ake sure the order's clear
00:16:18.730 --> 00:16:20.310
as to what falls under the 30 days.
00:16:20.310 --> 00:16:23.140
And so I think that
clarification is helpful.
00:16:23.140 --> 00:16:24.670
Does that give you enough guidance?
00:16:24.670 --> 00:16:26.063
Well, it's confusing in
00:16:26.063 --> 00:16:29.760
that the statute requires
the 30 day period
00:16:29.760 --> 00:16:32.290
to payment be made to the comptroller.
00:16:32.290 --> 00:16:33.123
Okay.
00:16:36.730 --> 00:16:39.100
So that would include
the indenture trustee
00:16:39.100 --> 00:16:41.240
also remitting the...
00:16:43.055 --> 00:16:43.888
And passing that money on to,
00:16:43.888 --> 00:16:45.600
so you're saying, per the statute,
00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:47.966
it requires the comptroller
00:16:47.966 --> 00:16:52.103
to receive any monies received
by ERCOT within 30 days.
00:16:54.860 --> 00:16:58.410
May I just add the
trustee is an intermediary
00:16:59.970 --> 00:17:02.610
for the benefit of the comptroller
00:17:02.610 --> 00:17:04.010
as the holder of the bonds.
00:17:04.010 --> 00:17:06.433
Okay, that's an
important clarification.
00:17:07.400 --> 00:17:12.400
I think that relationship
could capture the comptroller
00:17:12.750 --> 00:17:16.123
and fall within the statutory
requirement potentially.
00:17:18.350 --> 00:17:20.510
If you so decide.
00:17:20.510 --> 00:17:21.343
Well, so-
00:17:22.250 --> 00:17:25.233
But under this language
that we're considering, it could.
00:17:29.080 --> 00:17:30.613
So you're good with this.
00:17:34.097 --> 00:17:35.220
I think that
clarification is important
00:17:35.220 --> 00:17:36.300
because we wanna make sure we comply
00:17:36.300 --> 00:17:38.630
with statutory requirement,
and given the fact
00:17:38.630 --> 00:17:41.310
that the indenture
trustee is an intermediary
00:17:41.310 --> 00:17:42.730
for the comptroller is essentially like
00:17:42.730 --> 00:17:44.330
you're remitting the
money within 30 days
00:17:44.330 --> 00:17:45.424
to the comptroller.
00:17:45.424 --> 00:17:46.862
We'll add that phrase in here
00:17:46.862 --> 00:17:50.350
as a parenthetical
intermediary of the comptroller.
00:17:50.350 --> 00:17:52.103
Yes, that's helpful. Thank you.
00:17:54.400 --> 00:17:56.593
And I believe that is-
00:17:57.590 --> 00:18:00.550
On page 16, there was a
clarification that staff wanted.
00:18:00.550 --> 00:18:03.173
Ordering paragraph number 33.
00:18:07.950 --> 00:18:12.590
And that was respect to my request
00:18:12.590 --> 00:18:14.880
at the open meeting
regarding what amendments
00:18:14.880 --> 00:18:17.760
and agreements would be
filed in the compliance packet,
00:18:17.760 --> 00:18:20.763
and their question was whether
or not the amendments that,
00:18:21.760 --> 00:18:23.230
the amendment to the
agreement that resulted
00:18:23.230 --> 00:18:26.570
in a cost increase would
be the only amendments filed
00:18:26.570 --> 00:18:28.010
in the compliance packet,
00:18:28.010 --> 00:18:29.830
or should we have all
amendments and agreements?
00:18:29.830 --> 00:18:33.740
I would prefer to stay broad
and capture all the amendments.
00:18:33.740 --> 00:18:34.573
Same here.
00:18:38.760 --> 00:18:39.700
I'm sorry.
00:18:39.700 --> 00:18:42.410
Good with all amendments
going into that repository?
00:18:42.410 --> 00:18:44.100
Yes, absolutely.
00:18:44.100 --> 00:18:45.650
That's the requirement
in the other order.
00:18:45.650 --> 00:18:48.683
We'll make the two
provisions be consistent.
00:18:50.650 --> 00:18:54.670
And that is all I have
with respect to the order.
00:18:54.670 --> 00:18:58.020
Yeah, I have a couple,
probably more questions
00:18:58.990 --> 00:19:01.770
since I'm not a finance bond expert
00:19:01.770 --> 00:19:04.453
by any stretch of the imagination.
00:19:12.501 --> 00:19:14.900
Well, I do have a question, I guess,
00:19:14.900 --> 00:19:17.050
for staff as well as the
other Commissioners.
00:19:17.050 --> 00:19:20.780
And I just, I didn't understand why we,
00:19:20.780 --> 00:19:22.543
so this was on page 36.
00:19:25.420 --> 00:19:27.840
So this deals with collateral.
00:19:27.840 --> 00:19:31.210
I think in the other proceeding,
00:19:31.210 --> 00:19:33.400
we did two months
and this is four months.
00:19:33.400 --> 00:19:35.890
And I just wanted to, I
don't know the difference,
00:19:35.890 --> 00:19:38.110
quite frankly, between the two,
00:19:38.110 --> 00:19:40.590
if four months is okay for this
one and two months is better
00:19:40.590 --> 00:19:43.733
for the other one, but I
wanted to point out that there is,
00:19:44.747 --> 00:19:46.840
if it's okay to have
both, and I'm fine with it.
00:19:46.840 --> 00:19:49.370
I just wanted to make sure
that we were okay with that.
00:19:49.370 --> 00:19:51.450
So four months was
proposed in this one.
00:19:51.450 --> 00:19:54.300
I don't think any party
really challenged it.
00:19:54.300 --> 00:19:57.310
And the other one,
there was some parties
00:19:57.310 --> 00:20:01.193
that argued less than
four months was better.
00:20:02.953 --> 00:20:07.953
And I'll leave it to
ERCOT to explain why.
00:20:10.540 --> 00:20:14.970
The reason is because of
the timing of the settlement.
00:20:14.970 --> 00:20:19.970
So for the main order,
Subchapter M, the settlements don't,
00:20:22.200 --> 00:20:24.380
final settlements aren't until 55 days
00:20:24.380 --> 00:20:27.220
after the operating day,
and so you need more time
00:20:27.220 --> 00:20:30.190
to figure out if you've
got a default or not.
00:20:30.190 --> 00:20:31.023
On the other one,
00:20:31.023 --> 00:20:33.830
it's that the settlements
are much quicker,
00:20:33.830 --> 00:20:36.620
and so you don't need as much time
00:20:36.620 --> 00:20:39.220
for the collateral is my
understanding, but Sean, you could.
00:20:39.220 --> 00:20:40.800
That's a correct statement.
00:20:40.800 --> 00:20:42.743
So it's that additional
two months in effect.
00:20:44.111 --> 00:20:45.011
It sounds legit.
00:20:50.520 --> 00:20:55.250
On page 45. So I just
have a question about this.
00:20:57.420 --> 00:21:01.690
This was in here
initially, but the extension,
00:21:01.690 --> 00:21:04.720
if there's a disruption
in the financial markets
00:21:04.720 --> 00:21:06.427
that the United States, so it says,
00:21:06.427 --> 00:21:08.860
"However, if there's a
disruption in the financial markets
00:21:08.860 --> 00:21:11.050
in the United States at any
time during the effective period
00:21:11.050 --> 00:21:12.950
of disorder, it's also appropriate
00:21:12.950 --> 00:21:17.210
for the 24 month effective
period to automatically extend
00:21:17.210 --> 00:21:19.877
to a date that is 90 days
after such disruption."
00:21:21.560 --> 00:21:22.950
My question is...
00:21:28.400 --> 00:21:30.160
do you really think it's
gonna take 24 months
00:21:30.160 --> 00:21:35.160
to get these bonds sold and
back to the market participants
00:21:35.480 --> 00:21:36.740
in this process?
00:21:36.740 --> 00:21:40.460
That would, that's a concern
to me if it's gonna take
00:21:40.460 --> 00:21:43.670
that long, but if I'm reading it wrong
00:21:43.670 --> 00:21:45.970
or don't understand it
correctly, please tell me.
00:21:45.970 --> 00:21:46.810
Well, like you, Commissioner,
00:21:46.810 --> 00:21:48.940
I'm not a bond specialist either.
00:21:48.940 --> 00:21:51.890
Mr. Nydegger could probably
give you a better idea on that.
00:21:52.740 --> 00:21:54.840
For the initial
sale of the bonds
00:21:54.840 --> 00:21:57.880
to the comptroller's office,
it will not take 24 months.
00:21:57.880 --> 00:22:00.880
It will be a direct placement
with the comptroller's office.
00:22:01.800 --> 00:22:04.240
We are contemplating a refinancing
00:22:04.240 --> 00:22:05.903
that could take longer than that,
00:22:07.070 --> 00:22:10.730
depending on structuring
factors that we are exploring
00:22:10.730 --> 00:22:13.140
with our financial
advisors at that time.
00:22:13.140 --> 00:22:15.100
But the initial
placement will take place
00:22:15.100 --> 00:22:18.820
with the comptroller, we intend
before the end of this year.
00:22:18.820 --> 00:22:21.173
And the concern would be if,
00:22:23.170 --> 00:22:25.990
the concern would be
the financing, refinancing,
00:22:25.990 --> 00:22:30.300
so that the refinancing would
take place at a certain time.
00:22:30.300 --> 00:22:31.750
And if there's a financial disruption
00:22:31.750 --> 00:22:33.400
after the initial bonds are sold,
00:22:33.400 --> 00:22:35.580
that you would get more time to do that
00:22:36.720 --> 00:22:38.570
in order to get the best
price for refinancing.
00:22:38.570 --> 00:22:39.420
That's correct.
00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:42.080
Good clarification. Thank you.
00:22:43.580 --> 00:22:46.040
But you can commit that it
is not gonna take 24 months
00:22:46.040 --> 00:22:47.990
to sell the bonds initially?
00:22:47.990 --> 00:22:48.823
Yes, sir.
00:22:48.823 --> 00:22:49.656
Thank you.
00:22:50.930 --> 00:22:53.913
So my question
on this issue is,
00:22:55.100 --> 00:22:57.110
because from what I
understand, your proposal is
00:22:57.110 --> 00:23:01.000
if the disruption lasts three months,
00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:04.690
then you get to add the three
months to the 24 month period?
00:23:04.690 --> 00:23:05.523
That's correct.
00:23:05.523 --> 00:23:10.400
Plus then, the 90 day
extension, the backend,
00:23:10.400 --> 00:23:12.490
I'm sorry, to automatically be extended
00:23:12.490 --> 00:23:17.490
to 90 days after the
date of such disruption.
00:23:17.790 --> 00:23:18.720
That's correct.
00:23:18.720 --> 00:23:20.480
So I think that's
correct when you talk
00:23:20.480 --> 00:23:23.110
about ERCOT (indistinct),
the proposed changes.
00:23:23.110 --> 00:23:25.670
They didn't make the same
proposed changes in this order,
00:23:25.670 --> 00:23:29.453
but if we're gonna be
consistent, I think we need to.
00:23:30.900 --> 00:23:33.040
And so that concept of adding the period
00:23:33.040 --> 00:23:34.840
of the disruption plus 90 days
00:23:34.840 --> 00:23:38.940
to extend the 24 month
period was clearly made
00:23:38.940 --> 00:23:39.773
in the other one.
00:23:39.773 --> 00:23:44.640
Not so clearly here, but
consistency should prevail.
00:23:44.640 --> 00:23:45.860
I agree.
00:23:45.860 --> 00:23:50.860
So how do we clarify a
disruption or who declares it?
00:23:55.000 --> 00:23:57.230
There are industry
standards that are used
00:23:57.230 --> 00:23:59.433
to describe those disruptions.
00:24:00.280 --> 00:24:02.570
SIFMA, for example, will publish
00:24:02.570 --> 00:24:04.340
a publish form purchase agreement
00:24:04.340 --> 00:24:08.670
for the sale of securities that
describes those disruptions.
00:24:08.670 --> 00:24:13.360
It can be a shutdown of the
New York Stock Exchange
00:24:13.360 --> 00:24:17.570
or a major terroristic event
00:24:17.570 --> 00:24:19.720
that shuts down financial markets.
00:24:19.720 --> 00:24:23.420
But the concept is if these
markets are disrupted,
00:24:23.420 --> 00:24:25.990
there may be changes to the bond markets
00:24:25.990 --> 00:24:27.590
that we might need to react to.
00:24:27.590 --> 00:24:29.007
The rating agencies are reacting to that
00:24:29.007 --> 00:24:32.270
and how they evaluate
securities after those disruptors.
00:24:32.270 --> 00:24:34.750
Okay, so it's not ERCOT saying
00:24:34.750 --> 00:24:35.990
that we think there's a disruption,
00:24:35.990 --> 00:24:37.740
and therefore, we get 90 more days?
00:24:39.210 --> 00:24:42.223
Yeah, there's a very common
industry standard for that.
00:24:45.647 --> 00:24:46.963
And I think I have one more.
00:25:07.890 --> 00:25:09.570
This was on...
00:25:11.480 --> 00:25:12.693
page 17.
00:25:26.280 --> 00:25:27.950
The question was how much...
00:25:32.910 --> 00:25:37.060
So the priority, ERCOT receives
a waiver for funds allocated
00:25:37.060 --> 00:25:38.540
to the retirement or refund
00:25:38.540 --> 00:25:40.130
of existing debt will be reallocated
00:25:40.130 --> 00:25:44.053
to replenish the CRR receipts.
00:25:47.950 --> 00:25:49.780
Stephen, can you help me on this one?
00:25:49.780 --> 00:25:52.813
There was an issue
about upfront costs or-
00:25:57.530 --> 00:25:59.480
We went through it so quick. I want to-
00:26:00.690 --> 00:26:02.223
I'm not helping you help me.
00:26:04.490 --> 00:26:09.200
So the upfront costs are
encountered in the amount
00:26:09.200 --> 00:26:11.510
basically that the bonds
are being issued for.
00:26:11.510 --> 00:26:15.933
So it's the principle in the
the ongoing, the upfront cost.
00:26:18.399 --> 00:26:19.623
Is that what you're asking about?
00:26:21.320 --> 00:26:24.513
The ongoing costs are
gonna be added into the debt,
00:26:27.771 --> 00:26:29.070
not (indistinct) charge in this one.
00:26:29.070 --> 00:26:30.583
The default charge?
00:26:35.520 --> 00:26:38.280
If you may, the way I
understood this issue was that
00:26:39.226 --> 00:26:40.420
in ERCOT's application, as they stated,
00:26:40.420 --> 00:26:45.420
the implementation costs
that are allowed to be included
00:26:45.470 --> 00:26:48.990
in the default balance would consist
00:26:48.990 --> 00:26:51.790
of the costs that ERCOT
could potentially incur
00:26:51.790 --> 00:26:55.450
for retiring or refunding existing debt,
00:26:55.450 --> 00:26:58.300
and that would be captured
in the default balance
00:26:58.300 --> 00:27:02.700
and would be subject to, I
guess, default charges as well.
00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:05.440
But their ongoing cost for,
00:27:05.440 --> 00:27:09.260
associated with this
transaction would be not included
00:27:09.260 --> 00:27:11.010
in the uplift balance, but would be part
00:27:11.010 --> 00:27:13.950
of the default charge,
charges that ERCOT assesses.
00:27:13.950 --> 00:27:18.180
So if ERCOT doesn't need
that anymore ongoing cost,
00:27:18.180 --> 00:27:19.620
to incur any more ongoing costs,
00:27:19.620 --> 00:27:22.620
then they just wouldn't be
captured in the default charges,
00:27:22.620 --> 00:27:26.900
but if the implementation
costs related to retiring
00:27:26.900 --> 00:27:30.010
and refunding debt were lower
00:27:30.010 --> 00:27:31.870
than ERCOT originally estimated,
00:27:31.870 --> 00:27:34.420
those amounts would be
returned to the CRR account.
00:27:37.010 --> 00:27:39.550
That's a correct
summary, so you have,
00:27:39.550 --> 00:27:41.860
if for some reason the
upfront cost estimate,
00:27:41.860 --> 00:27:45.800
if the upfront costs differ,
then we would make that,
00:27:45.800 --> 00:27:47.650
from what we put in the
issuance advice letter,
00:27:47.650 --> 00:27:51.220
then we would make that
adjustment to the ongoing cost
00:27:51.220 --> 00:27:53.900
to credit that amount back or
recover the additional amount
00:27:53.900 --> 00:27:55.200
if there was a difference.
00:27:59.100 --> 00:28:00.390
So I will leave that.
00:28:03.390 --> 00:28:05.633
That's the recovery
of those fees, right?
00:28:07.140 --> 00:28:10.160
Yes, it's if, say
it goes both ways.
00:28:10.160 --> 00:28:12.610
So it's, in effect, a true up.
00:28:12.610 --> 00:28:14.880
Okay, I'm fine with that.
00:28:14.880 --> 00:28:17.010
Okay, me too. Good.
00:28:17.010 --> 00:28:20.060
I think the proposed
language as written is good
00:28:20.060 --> 00:28:20.893
with me as well.
00:28:20.893 --> 00:28:23.040
Okay, good. Any more?
00:28:23.040 --> 00:28:24.690
No, that's all I have.
00:28:24.690 --> 00:28:29.690
Mr. Nydegger? Could you
please finish the sentence for me?
00:28:30.760 --> 00:28:35.663
Yes. Been flipping
pages, let me get back there.
00:28:41.680 --> 00:28:46.340
Okay, so this in reference
to ordering paragraph 23,
00:28:46.340 --> 00:28:50.900
which discusses criteria
for credit enhancements.
00:28:50.900 --> 00:28:53.893
So what this paragraph is referring to,
00:28:54.730 --> 00:28:57.420
ERCOT is required at the
time of issuing these bonds,
00:28:57.420 --> 00:28:59.540
if there is a credit enhancement,
00:28:59.540 --> 00:29:03.080
that they provide information
that's sufficient to document
00:29:03.080 --> 00:29:08.080
that those enhancements
are worthwhile in comparison
00:29:08.830 --> 00:29:10.613
to their relative benefits so
00:29:10.613 --> 00:29:12.230
that the Commission can determine
00:29:12.230 --> 00:29:14.533
that we're achieving
the lowest overall cost.
00:29:15.610 --> 00:29:19.690
So to complete that
sentence, it should say
00:29:19.690 --> 00:29:22.560
that enhanced marketability provided
00:29:22.560 --> 00:29:27.080
that the applicant has
provided sufficient information
00:29:27.080 --> 00:29:29.920
to the Commission's
designated representative
00:29:29.920 --> 00:29:33.683
to evaluate the relative
benefits of such arrangements.
00:29:47.920 --> 00:29:51.070
Should it not also include
the language expected
00:29:51.070 --> 00:29:53.320
to provide benefits
greater than their costs?
00:29:54.770 --> 00:29:56.663
We would be comfortable
with that addition.
00:30:06.510 --> 00:30:09.380
Okay, Stephen, if you
could read that back to me
00:30:09.380 --> 00:30:10.690
in its entirety on that sentence
00:30:10.690 --> 00:30:12.713
so we capture it for the record.
00:30:14.200 --> 00:30:16.150
Well, sir, I was kind
of hoping to listen
00:30:16.150 --> 00:30:17.604
to the transcript.
00:30:17.604 --> 00:30:20.187
(all laughing)
00:30:26.980 --> 00:30:30.563
Arrange enhanced marketability
provided that the applicant,
00:30:32.180 --> 00:30:33.963
and I'm freelancing here now,
00:30:35.700 --> 00:30:38.940
but I'm gonna look to the
ordering paragraph perhaps to...
00:30:41.760 --> 00:30:43.573
to copy that language.
00:30:48.421 --> 00:30:51.350
ERCOT provides the information
00:30:51.350 --> 00:30:54.000
to the Commissioner's representative
00:30:56.910 --> 00:31:00.900
to demonstrate that
such arrangements are
00:31:00.900 --> 00:31:03.450
reasonably expected to
provide benefits greater
00:31:03.450 --> 00:31:04.333
than the cost.
00:31:07.258 --> 00:31:08.310
Is that good for you, sir?
00:31:08.310 --> 00:31:09.143
Yes.
00:31:10.062 --> 00:31:11.883
Good, me too. Good.
00:31:14.650 --> 00:31:16.700
David, I hope you're
writing this down.
00:31:18.440 --> 00:31:19.750
I hope somebody's
listening to this
00:31:19.750 --> 00:31:22.533
other than everybody
out in the gallery here.
00:31:24.150 --> 00:31:29.150
With that, I think that
closes issues subject to, yup.
00:31:37.000 --> 00:31:38.060
Name and for the record.
00:31:38.060 --> 00:31:39.697
Chad Seely with ERCOT.
00:31:39.697 --> 00:31:41.390
I wanted to go back to
the collateral discussion
00:31:41.390 --> 00:31:45.770
that Commissioner Cobos
changed the language from deposits
00:31:45.770 --> 00:31:48.980
and letter of credits just
because Jeff was out of the room.
00:31:48.980 --> 00:31:51.220
And there is a specific
reason on why we asked
00:31:51.220 --> 00:31:56.040
for that language so that
it didn't create confusion
00:31:56.040 --> 00:31:58.060
being held by the trustee.
00:31:58.060 --> 00:32:00.950
So as long, and I agree
with the flexibility comment
00:32:00.950 --> 00:32:03.520
because we don't
know, 30 years over time
00:32:03.520 --> 00:32:05.410
that we wanna lock ourselves into that.
00:32:05.410 --> 00:32:07.200
But I think having
language that made it clear
00:32:07.200 --> 00:32:10.290
that the collateral will be held
by ERCOT would be helpful
00:32:10.290 --> 00:32:11.520
as an additional phrase.
00:32:11.520 --> 00:32:15.390
Just "held by ERCOT"
would address that issue.
00:32:15.390 --> 00:32:16.970
Otherwise, there's other references
00:32:16.970 --> 00:32:19.960
in the order about
collateral going to the trustee,
00:32:19.960 --> 00:32:24.490
and ERCOT does not attend
for this cash or letter of credit
00:32:24.490 --> 00:32:26.320
to be pledged to the trustee.
00:32:26.320 --> 00:32:29.960
And so changing that generically
to collateral could create
00:32:29.960 --> 00:32:32.820
some confusion as we go
through the financing part.
00:32:32.820 --> 00:32:35.410
But if it had just
"collateral held by ERCOT,"
00:32:35.410 --> 00:32:37.240
I think that would address that issue.
00:32:37.240 --> 00:32:38.240
And then we're gonna clarify,
00:32:38.240 --> 00:32:40.220
obviously, we're moving
with protocol changes
00:32:40.220 --> 00:32:43.890
and that'll be the framework
that will further amplify
00:32:43.890 --> 00:32:46.470
those provisions, but we
don't wanna get into a situation
00:32:46.470 --> 00:32:49.410
where, as we go through
the financing mechanism,
00:32:49.410 --> 00:32:52.060
that the trustee or
other parties believe
00:32:52.060 --> 00:32:54.430
that that should be
pledged in the arrangement
00:32:54.430 --> 00:32:56.200
because that's not our
expectation at this point.
00:32:56.200 --> 00:32:59.543
Yeah, so that would be
changed in two places, correct?
00:33:01.460 --> 00:33:02.293
For conformity.
00:33:02.293 --> 00:33:05.370
I think it was in finding
of fact 63, I believe.
00:33:05.370 --> 00:33:06.620
Yeah, that's one place.
00:33:07.690 --> 00:33:09.350
It's maybe a couple of places,
00:33:09.350 --> 00:33:10.590
but wherever it is in the order,
00:33:10.590 --> 00:33:13.220
I think adding ERCOT's proposed language
00:33:13.220 --> 00:33:17.750
is a reasonable approach
and giving ERCOT the flexibility
00:33:17.750 --> 00:33:21.230
to collect whatever collateral it needs,
00:33:21.230 --> 00:33:23.670
specific form and
laying it out in protocol.
00:33:23.670 --> 00:33:25.290
And that it will be
held by ERCOT, yeah.
00:33:25.290 --> 00:33:28.957
So we would put the
language, it currently reads,
00:33:28.957 --> 00:33:32.177
"Market participants
to post collateral,"
00:33:33.440 --> 00:33:36.277
and we would insert there "with ERCOT."
00:33:37.557 --> 00:33:39.307
"Post collateral with ERCOT."
00:33:40.850 --> 00:33:41.683
Yeah.
00:33:42.880 --> 00:33:45.293
Post collateral to ERCOT?
00:33:45.293 --> 00:33:48.540
Post collateral to ERCOT
and be held by ERCOT.
00:33:48.540 --> 00:33:50.050
I just wanna make it clear
00:33:50.050 --> 00:33:51.690
that we're gonna be the custodian
00:33:51.690 --> 00:33:53.760
of holding that collateral.
00:33:53.760 --> 00:33:56.600
And that'll be the same issue
that's in Nebraska as well.
00:33:56.600 --> 00:33:59.760
'Cause we highlighted the
same theme in the Nebraska,
00:33:59.760 --> 00:34:02.203
the Subchapter in part of our comments.
00:34:07.760 --> 00:34:09.870
Let's see
how this shakes out.
00:34:11.110 --> 00:34:13.443
I agree with the
comment about flexibility.
00:34:16.448 --> 00:34:21.448
Okay.
00:34:23.459 --> 00:34:25.410
Okay.
00:34:25.410 --> 00:34:27.593
Any further discussion on this issue?
00:34:29.384 --> 00:34:30.217
Okay.
00:34:31.610 --> 00:34:34.440
So at this time I would
entertain a motion
00:34:34.440 --> 00:34:36.650
to approve the proposed
debt obligation order,
00:34:36.650 --> 00:34:38.390
consistent with our discussion,
00:34:38.390 --> 00:34:41.160
and ask OPDM to make any corrections,
00:34:41.160 --> 00:34:44.713
clarifications, and stylistic
changes deemed necessary.
00:34:45.710 --> 00:34:46.543
So moved.
00:34:46.543 --> 00:34:47.430
Second.
00:34:47.430 --> 00:34:49.156
All those in favor, say aye.
00:34:49.156 --> 00:34:50.530
[Will, Jimmy, and Lori] Aye.
00:34:50.530 --> 00:34:54.316
All those opposed, same sign.
Hearing none, motion passes.
00:34:54.316 --> 00:34:57.010
(gavel bangs)
00:34:57.010 --> 00:35:01.560
Okay, next up, agenda item number two,
00:35:01.560 --> 00:35:03.650
docket number 52322,
00:35:03.650 --> 00:35:06.360
application of the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas
00:35:06.360 --> 00:35:09.140
for a debt obligation order
under PURA Chapter 39.
00:35:09.140 --> 00:35:12.523
Subchapter N in request
for good cause exception.
00:35:13.460 --> 00:35:16.730
I'll move through it
similar to what we just did.
00:35:16.730 --> 00:35:18.100
Similar to the previous docket,
00:35:18.100 --> 00:35:20.210
there were some very good clarifications
00:35:20.210 --> 00:35:22.290
and corrections suggested.
00:35:22.290 --> 00:35:26.750
I believe, as I did in the last docket,
00:35:26.750 --> 00:35:30.360
suggested substantive
changes are unnecessary.
00:35:30.360 --> 00:35:32.820
However, I believe that clarifications
00:35:32.820 --> 00:35:36.090
that ERCOT had
suggested in their recent filing
00:35:37.460 --> 00:35:43.697
on finding of facts
numbers 147, 180, 181,
00:35:43.697 --> 00:35:45.430
and 212,
00:35:45.430 --> 00:35:48.773
and to the ordering paragraph
number 88 are acceptable.
00:35:50.350 --> 00:35:54.960
I do have one question for
ERCOT, so glad y'all stayed up.
00:35:54.960 --> 00:35:59.960
On paragraph number 61, on
ordering paragraph number 61.
00:36:02.620 --> 00:36:05.370
So did you intend
00:36:05.370 --> 00:36:07.600
for the Commission's
designated representative
00:36:07.600 --> 00:36:11.740
to notify ERCOT on
the first business day
00:36:11.740 --> 00:36:14.390
after the Commission's
receipt of the issuance order?
00:36:16.630 --> 00:36:18.183
What was the intention there?
00:36:26.260 --> 00:36:29.480
No, I think that, I
believe that should be...
00:36:40.380 --> 00:36:41.723
the fifth business day.
00:36:43.900 --> 00:36:47.740
My recollection is that
we originally had a week,
00:36:47.740 --> 00:36:49.210
so that would be five business days,
00:36:49.210 --> 00:36:53.550
although I think we
were flexible on that.
00:36:53.550 --> 00:36:55.730
I thought the Commission
had to make their decision
00:36:55.730 --> 00:36:57.663
within four business days.
00:37:01.730 --> 00:37:04.460
I'll give you a moment
to gather your thoughts.
00:37:04.460 --> 00:37:07.260
I'll try and find the right
piece of paper. Thank you.
00:37:16.240 --> 00:37:19.420
So 61 is when the
Commission's representative
00:37:19.420 --> 00:37:24.420
must notify archive and
Commission after the receipt,
00:37:26.800 --> 00:37:30.040
whether after the receipt
or the issuance advice letter,
00:37:30.040 --> 00:37:32.823
whether that the issuance
will be in compliance.
00:37:33.730 --> 00:37:36.630
Then the Commission,
I believe, elsewhere,
00:37:36.630 --> 00:37:39.710
if the Commission does not
act within four business days
00:37:40.820 --> 00:37:43.510
to stop it, it goes forth.
00:37:43.510 --> 00:37:47.300
So I mean, this date's got
to be preceding that four days
00:37:47.300 --> 00:37:51.510
and it's, the way it
was originally written,
00:37:51.510 --> 00:37:53.470
it just said the business day after.
00:37:53.470 --> 00:37:55.653
We thought it meant first.
We thought we'd clarify it.
00:37:55.653 --> 00:37:58.303
Then we thought we'd make
sure y'all agree with that.
00:37:59.970 --> 00:38:01.920
We are okay with
fourth business day.
00:38:04.440 --> 00:38:05.547
First business day.
00:38:11.620 --> 00:38:13.670
Yeah, I think one
business day is fine.
00:38:14.610 --> 00:38:15.827
It's really the burden on the Commission
00:38:15.827 --> 00:38:17.283
that's the issue here.
00:38:19.720 --> 00:38:21.653
And I understand your point about if-
00:38:22.610 --> 00:38:23.650
Well, that's what
you're (indistinct).
00:38:23.650 --> 00:38:25.020
I mean, there is an issue about whether
00:38:25.020 --> 00:38:28.020
that's too quick for our
designated representative,
00:38:28.020 --> 00:38:31.020
whoever they are, to
communicate that to us, but.
00:38:34.516 --> 00:38:36.847
I don't know who that
is and can't ask them.
00:38:40.040 --> 00:38:42.870
I just need to know for the
purposes of the business here,
00:38:42.870 --> 00:38:45.843
the business end of this, what's needed.
00:38:47.940 --> 00:38:50.270
Our representative's
gonna be involved in all this.
00:38:50.270 --> 00:38:51.730
I would assume that
they know at the time
00:38:51.730 --> 00:38:54.453
whether they think it complies or not.
00:38:59.310 --> 00:39:01.370
Well, if we said the
second business day,
00:39:01.370 --> 00:39:02.970
it seems like that would
give you a little more time,
00:39:02.970 --> 00:39:06.580
but it would still be an
expeditious process.
00:39:06.580 --> 00:39:09.330
I'm not, there may be
other ways to do this,
00:39:09.330 --> 00:39:11.393
but that's one suggestion.
00:39:14.150 --> 00:39:16.180
I'm good with two days.
00:39:16.180 --> 00:39:17.520
Should I look over
at Thomas here?
00:39:17.520 --> 00:39:20.220
I mean, you're on the
functional end of this decision.
00:39:23.140 --> 00:39:23.973
Thank you, Commissioners.
00:39:23.973 --> 00:39:25.520
Thomas Gleason for staff.
00:39:25.520 --> 00:39:26.740
We have no concerns.
00:39:26.740 --> 00:39:31.030
Okay, two business days.
Everybody okay with that?
00:39:31.030 --> 00:39:31.943
Yes.
Great.
00:39:33.190 --> 00:39:36.590
Now just to back up similar
to the way we did it before,
00:39:36.590 --> 00:39:37.977
do you wanna walk
through each one of those
00:39:37.977 --> 00:39:42.390
that I just referenced or have
you kind of cross-referenced?
00:39:42.390 --> 00:39:43.223
If we can.
00:39:43.223 --> 00:39:45.050
Yeah. Let's do it.
00:39:45.050 --> 00:39:49.373
Number 147, finding of fact number 147.
00:39:57.380 --> 00:39:59.020
Related costs.
00:39:59.020 --> 00:40:00.070
Oh, I'm good there.
00:40:01.010 --> 00:40:02.853
And then 180.
00:40:07.070 --> 00:40:10.530
Again, suggested change from ERCOT legal
00:40:10.530 --> 00:40:13.940
rather than scheduled, legal
final payment seemed necessary
00:40:13.940 --> 00:40:15.680
for their purposes.
00:40:15.680 --> 00:40:18.520
I believe the next one might be 181.
00:40:18.520 --> 00:40:19.353
That's the same thing.
00:40:19.353 --> 00:40:20.643
Sorry, yeah. Same thing.
00:40:22.080 --> 00:40:25.413
Yep, and then 212.
00:40:33.125 --> 00:40:35.760
Yeah, I do have
a question on this.
00:40:35.760 --> 00:40:39.760
I just, again, not being a bond
person, question for ERCOT,
00:40:39.760 --> 00:40:44.180
is lead book running
underwriter a common term?
00:40:44.180 --> 00:40:45.013
Yes, it is.
00:40:45.013 --> 00:40:50.013
It refers to the co-manager
of an underwriting syndicate.
00:40:50.320 --> 00:40:53.523
It will be one underwriter
or two underwriters, typically,
00:40:54.410 --> 00:40:58.530
of a team of six or seven
or eight underwriters
00:40:58.530 --> 00:41:00.230
for a security of this size.
00:41:00.230 --> 00:41:02.830
Do you know, Stephen, is
this a term that we've used
00:41:02.830 --> 00:41:06.593
in other securitizations or is
this new to this docket and-
00:41:07.800 --> 00:41:10.720
Well, so I can't tell you
whether it is used in the order,
00:41:10.720 --> 00:41:13.590
but it is certainly a term
that I believe I first learned
00:41:13.590 --> 00:41:15.130
in those previous securitizations.
00:41:15.130 --> 00:41:17.507
It didn't catch me off
guard when I read it.
00:41:17.507 --> 00:41:19.479
Okay.
00:41:19.479 --> 00:41:22.020
I'm good with it.
00:41:22.020 --> 00:41:24.480
And then ordering paragraph number 88
00:41:24.480 --> 00:41:26.273
on page 69 of 72.
00:41:32.520 --> 00:41:36.100
And conforms to what we just discussed
00:41:36.100 --> 00:41:38.450
in the following proceeding,
the 90 days after.
00:41:42.770 --> 00:41:44.260
And just to be clear,
when we approve
00:41:44.260 --> 00:41:48.180
this proposed language that
ERCOT has proffered to us,
00:41:48.180 --> 00:41:53.180
we are agreeing to bake
in the period of disruption
00:41:54.750 --> 00:41:56.420
and then the 90 days.
00:41:56.420 --> 00:41:57.253
Correct.
00:42:00.316 --> 00:42:01.830
Because again, that's
a defined period in terms
00:42:01.830 --> 00:42:03.800
of your industry practice.
00:42:03.800 --> 00:42:05.000
That's correct.
00:42:06.761 --> 00:42:07.780
Just to make sure
we're staying consistent
00:42:07.780 --> 00:42:08.673
with both cases.
00:42:10.230 --> 00:42:12.480
And so that's what I had,
and I'll open it up to you
00:42:12.480 --> 00:42:14.120
if you've got individual issues.
00:42:14.120 --> 00:42:15.500
Well, so we'd
throw in there, too,
00:42:15.500 --> 00:42:19.160
the whole issue about the
collateral to be held by ERCOT
00:42:20.182 --> 00:42:21.875
that we talked in the other one.
00:42:21.875 --> 00:42:24.860
I don't remember which he
findings they are in this one,
00:42:24.860 --> 00:42:26.620
but we'll find them.
00:42:26.620 --> 00:42:29.330
At least finding of fact
number 190 speaks to it,
00:42:29.330 --> 00:42:31.593
and there may be other
portions of the order.
00:42:34.314 --> 00:42:36.400
And the goal is to
make those consistent?
00:42:36.400 --> 00:42:37.403
Yes, sir.
00:42:45.210 --> 00:42:49.000
One remaining issue
that I had was on page 71
00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:50.960
on whether or not we would
admit the settlement agreement
00:42:50.960 --> 00:42:52.360
into the evidentiary record.
00:42:55.620 --> 00:42:56.860
I would propose that we do.
00:42:56.860 --> 00:42:59.660
That's common practice
that we utilize here
00:42:59.660 --> 00:43:01.740
at the Commission to admit those items
00:43:01.740 --> 00:43:03.140
into the evidentiary record.
00:43:05.800 --> 00:43:07.849
We have done so in the past anyway.
00:43:07.849 --> 00:43:08.966
That's kind of our call on it.
00:43:08.966 --> 00:43:10.240
We have did all kinds of things
00:43:10.240 --> 00:43:11.953
in records of several dockets.
00:43:14.924 --> 00:43:18.160
Is there any procedural delay
that would result from that?
00:43:18.160 --> 00:43:18.993
No.
00:43:21.150 --> 00:43:22.210
Nope.
00:43:22.210 --> 00:43:23.310
Then I'm okay with it.
00:43:23.310 --> 00:43:24.310
Me too.
00:43:24.310 --> 00:43:25.143
Great.
00:43:30.710 --> 00:43:32.110
Anything else, Commissioner?
00:43:33.320 --> 00:43:34.413
I have none.
No.
00:43:36.210 --> 00:43:37.323
Fantastic.
00:43:39.130 --> 00:43:40.880
Now that our discussion has concluded,
00:43:40.880 --> 00:43:42.923
I will entertain a
motion to approve the-
00:43:42.923 --> 00:43:47.150
And the same changes
to the issuance advice letter
00:43:47.150 --> 00:43:49.160
that we discussed in the prior docket,
00:43:49.160 --> 00:43:51.030
item number seven on page...
00:43:53.820 --> 00:43:56.030
Credit, dealing with credit enhancement.
00:43:56.030 --> 00:43:57.263
It's the same
thing, is it not?
00:43:57.263 --> 00:43:58.096
Yes, the exact same thing.
00:43:58.096 --> 00:44:00.760
So I would say that
we need to conform that
00:44:00.760 --> 00:44:05.280
to the previous language we
used in the previous proceeding.
00:44:05.280 --> 00:44:09.803
That tracks to ordering
paragraph 52 in the Subchapter N.
00:44:11.870 --> 00:44:14.363
Did you also need to admit
the settlement testimony?
00:44:15.306 --> 00:44:19.973
It's been admitted in this
ordering paragraph already.
00:44:20.980 --> 00:44:23.460
Good. All issues complete.
00:44:23.460 --> 00:44:24.750
I will now entertain a motion
00:44:24.750 --> 00:44:27.070
to approve the proposed
debt obligation order consistent
00:44:27.070 --> 00:44:29.180
with our discussion and ask OPDM
00:44:29.180 --> 00:44:31.040
to make any corrections, clarifications,
00:44:31.040 --> 00:44:34.460
and stylistic changes deemed necessary.
00:44:34.460 --> 00:44:35.370
So moved.
00:44:35.370 --> 00:44:36.203
Second.
00:44:36.203 --> 00:44:37.638
All those in favor, say aye,
00:44:37.638 --> 00:44:38.471
[Will, Jimmy, and Lori] Aye.
00:44:38.471 --> 00:44:42.343
All those opposed, same sign.
Hearing none, motion passes.
00:44:42.343 --> 00:44:43.660
(gavel bangs)
00:44:43.660 --> 00:44:46.440
At this time, I don't feel that we need
00:44:46.440 --> 00:44:49.610
to take up docket
number, item number three,
00:44:49.610 --> 00:44:50.763
docket number 52364.
00:44:53.400 --> 00:44:58.400
Therefore, this meeting,
pending any other business,
00:44:58.570 --> 00:45:00.700
this meeting of the Public
Utility Commission is
00:45:00.700 --> 00:45:05.700
hereby adjourned at 11:59
AM on October 13th, 2021.
00:45:06.159 --> 00:45:07.930
(gavel bangs)