Good morning. 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 february 10th 2022 for the record my name
is Peter Lake and with me today are well, Mcadams,
laura Cobos and jimmy Gladfelter. Mr jones. Could you
please walk us through the consent items on today's
agenda? Good morning. Commissioners by individual ballot
The following items were placed on your consent agenda
1279, 10, 13, 16 and 17. And for the record commissioner
Cobos has recused herself from item 10.
Thank you sir. Is there a motion to approve the items
just described by Mr?
All in favor say, aye, I don't oppose. The motion passes
as we move into the public comment. A portion of our
agenda. I'd like to remind parties and stakeholders
they should not approach the table unless oral argument
has been granted or they have been invited by a commissioner
at this time. We'll open for public comment. Oral comments
related to a specific agenda item will be heard when
that item has taken up. This segment of public comment
is for general comments. Only speakers will be limited
to three minutes each. Mr United. Do we have anyone
from the public signed up to speak? No, sir. No one
signed up on the list
In that case. Public comment is now closed. We will
not be taking up item 21 today.
The first two items were consented. I don't have anything
on number three which brings us to Item # four. That
out for us. Mr Journeay (item:4) Item four is docket 51249.
It's the petition of cook rose to amend lindell Rural
Water Supply Corporation CCN. By expedited release
The petitioner filed a motion to withdraw because a
proposed order has already been filed in this docket
The motion must be addressed by the commission.
Thank you. Sir. Creek Rose is moving for the withdrawal
of their own petition. Seems to make sense to me any
other thoughts or comments I would think they'd know
best that they know what to do Enough. Is there a motion
to find good cause for the reasons discuss and to grant
Cook Rose's motion for withdrawal
all in favor say, aye, I don't oppose the motion passes
Item no five, (item:5) Item five is Chris Chris Harps Appeal
of the cost of obtaining service from Mount Zion Water
Supply Corporation Before use the draft. Preliminary
order filed on February two. Thank you sir. Preliminary
order sets out the issues nicely. I do have a concern
or an opportunity to add another question given the
extraordinary cost for a single
Family resident connection and an 8" line.
That seems odd for both from the cost and the size
of the infrastructure, so happy to hear thoughts but
I'd like to add a question that is much more pointed
than any of the questions currently in that order asking
if those facilities that the 8" line and and the cost
or being installed to plan for future growth or for
the benefit of future customers should that cost be
allocated not to just Mr hart but also those future
customers and
thoughts, comments. I support your effort. Yeah, that
that sounds logical.
Yes, I agree. I think that's a great question to ask
from a cost, consumer cost standpoint on cost allocation
I agree. Okay, I've got some language here read for
your consideration if the facilities Add this two part
of question 10 if the facilities necessary to provide
service. Mr Harper capable benefiting other or future
customers should Mr harper's cost to obtain service
be reduced to reflect the benefits that are newer to
all customers of the utility.
That makes sense? Yes, I agree with it.
Other thoughts, comments. Alright, motion is there
a motion to approve the preliminary order as modified
by the additional question I just laid out second all
in favor say, aye, I don't oppose. The motion passes
brings us to item number six mr
(item:6) Item six is docket 52493. It's the complaint of
Brad White against Arledge Ridge Water Supply Corporation
A draft lottery order was filed on February two,
similar situation here, the preliminary order covers
most issues well, a similar question
regarding Mr White and the cost of infrastructure needed
for just one home or is it for the future development
or expansion
the language any thoughts or comments if I can propose
some language still like it? Okay. Uh in this case
add the question to the Prime Minister order that says
if the facilities necessary to provide service to Mr
White are capable of benefiting other or future customers
Should mr White's cost to obtain service be reduced
to reflect benefits that energy of all customers of
the utility if that makes sense.
We've got a motion and a second to approve the preliminary
order has modified by this question. All in favor say
aye, aye, I'm not opposed the motion passes. Number
seven was consented. I don't have anything on number
eight. Number 9 was consented
which was 10 which brings us to (item:11) item number 11. Docket
number 51912,
item 11 is docked at 51912 is the application of a
P tech system in their CCN for a transmission line
and then the referrals and Patricio counties. A proposal
for decision was filed on December 22 exceptions to
50 and replies to those exceptions were filed. So a
judge filed a letter on february 2nd with two corrections
to the PFD and I have filed a memorandum with proposed
changes to the PFD. In addition, the commission has
granted oral argument in this matter.
Thank you sir.
As in all of these routing cases, it's always a challenging
decision.
I think we traditionally here or oral argument first
if that works for you all well call up witnesses. Uh
first on the list is David Brown uh and I assume the
usual three minutes, sir. Yes, sir.
Would you like me to station myself? Perfect, thank
you. Thank
Good morning. I'm David Brown and with the law firm
of you'll brown blanket night here in Austin represent
team Michael O'Connor and his family uh in there
and we're also a member of what we call the aligned
interveners who have sought to to establish a slightly
different route, so I'm here to speak. Uh give you
comments on two different analyses. The first one is
what we call Z mod route Z mod. Uh If you've read
all of the briefing and I'm sure you've been briefed
on the briefing at least Z mod provides for uh some
changes that are all voluntary on the part of landowners
that that actually caused bifurcation of their properties
as opposed to avoiding it. But that's all in the interest
of protecting the aransas river valley. And if I could
go through that real quickly, we've proposed modifications
to, to links 21 C 21 A 54 52 and 50, which
are all on Route Z. Uh It would in fact remove sharp
terms, it would shorten lengths, It would remove all
aransas river crossings uh and it would substantially
reduce the burden and the destruction of, of the bottomland
forests along the Francis river valley.
Perhaps equally important. It removes almost all involuntary
bifurcation of properties. Uh And it reduces that to
about a half a mile. Uh one landowner, about half a
mile now in the, in the PFD, the LJ noted that that
there was
what they called insufficient evidence of the cost
savings. But but in fact, on cross examination, if
you review the record, you'll find that we found that
we were able to establish that The types of modifications
we were talking about would would eliminate a number
of very sharp turns, some more than 90°1 minute left
Thank you. It would shorten some of the links, it would
remove all Renzi's river crossings and it would eliminate
the bifurcation. So All of those things together reduce
the cost by an estimated $5 million. And we've put
that actually $5.5 million which would make route Z
as modified one of the least costly routes offered
in the in the and the and the application ah jumping
to route in versus route T, which is where most of
the briefing most recently and in the exceptions is
focused were supporters of route in. Uh And if you
look at page three of our brief, you'll see we've mapped
the two areas of bifurcation from those two. First
of all, the bifurcation that's caused by route in is
about 1/3 of that. That's caused by route T. And just
to close out. Um
If you analyze the factors, the best thing that the
supporters of route we can say is it's almost as good
as route in. They can't find anything where it's better
than Route End and Route End provides far less bifurcation
of property.
So for the, the O'Connor family, we request that you
adopt Z mod or barring that route in. Thank you. Next
up is tom Forrester
Mhm.
Good morning commissioners. Tom ford steer. I'm an
attorney with the law firm of Winstead Pc. I have the
privilege of representing Burke Holland Corporation
that's a family owned corporation which owns the Thompson
ranch, which is located on the far north end of the
study area. Uh It has the Grissom station located on
it and one of the occupational hazards of having a
substation on your property is there's gonna be a lot
of links that go into it. There are 11 alternate route
links that eventually terminate in the Brisbane station
That's about 20% of the total number of alternate route
links for this project represents about 13.6 miles
of different ways to get into the Grissom station.
For that reason, my client worked very hard through
this entire proceeding to try and figure out a way
to provide a safe and reliable and cost efficient entrance
into the Grissom station. We were part of route I.
S. R. Which was presented to the commission and the
commission in august declined to accept it and asked
the parties go back to work harder to try and find
a more cost efficient way to do it. And we all did
we worked as hard as we could. And I didn't realize
this or I guess I had forgotten until I went back and
looked at the PFD. But we opposed route in from the
very beginning, which is what the PFD has recommended
route intakes. This line almost completely off of my
client's property, but we we rejected it and declined
to endorse it principally because it resulted in so
much bifurcation of land for the same reason we opposed
route T so vigorously. Um, I think you'll hear later
this morning from the folks that are directly impacted
by route in. And the one thing that my client shares
in common with those folks is that nobody wants their
land to be bifurcated or bisected. But there is a difference
between the concept of not in my backyard and not on
my property line. They don't want it in their backyard
nor do they want it on their property line and it's
gotta go somewhere and there's not gonna be a perfect
solution. What I would tell all of you to please consider
is route Z is 20%. Even without the modifications and
the voluntary bifurcation and by sections that many
of the landowners on route Z mod are offering it results
in a 20% cost savings relative to route I. S. R. Which
uh the commissioners declined to accept 20% is significant
if you take into consideration the modifications maybe
$5.5 million worth of additional savings. It's an even
greater cost results in greater cost savings. So in
conclusion, on behalf of bark collar corporation, we
would ask you to please consider around Z or Z mod
We stand by our opposition around T. And if you decline
to adopt Z or Z mod, we would ask you two, Please
adopt the recommendation of the PhD for route in. Thank
you for your time. Thank you. Next next up is Patrick
Resnick.
Good morning Chair Fellow Commissioners. My name is
Patrick Resnick. I'm an attorney with braun in Gresham
and I've been representing landowners in these routing
cases for a long time. And when we came to you some
months ago, it's become known as the $20 million dollar
increase. We understand why you rejected that because
of the cost. We had unanimous support, both with all
of the landowners who had intervened AP and P. C. Staff
as Mr Forrester said, we went back to the drawing board
All of the landowners ap and staff. I've never seen
a case in all these years where people have worked
so hard, including the utility company and staff to
come up with a route from a community value standpoint
to support stool dynamics and all the landowners and
all the concerns that all the landowners have. I represent
walter Wildlife Foundation and we oppose routes and
and T and we support route Z along with almost well
with all of the lined interveners and there's only
one landowner. Mrs webcasting is here today. And Mr
Carr who is impacted by that who is opposed to route
Z. I would appreciate this this this commission to
seriously consider the impact that the efforts that
everybody has made and to deny those efforts and deny
quite frankly round Z given the cost and all the criteria
that Mr Brown and Mr Forrester has stated and that
I also in the testimonies of Mr Taylor and Mr Armstrong
and their numerous clients. They are not here today
but they also support route. See
it would be unfortunate and it would be disheartening
and our balloons would be deflated about the efforts
that we have really had its like why why go to the
trouble anymore? Just pick a route and the utility
company gets the recommended route and it's done with
that concerns and the future impacts of this very very
important case. World Wildlife Foundation Board has
asked me to give a statement I pared it down. But the
World Wildlife Foundation was set up in 1954 is a non
profit wildlife education and research foundation.
Mr Welder set it up for the purposes he described in
his will and that's in the record. You've got about
a minute. It's all in the briefing but his desire was
to afford all the communities students the public,
everybody an opportunity to experience what he experienced
in nature with all of the development that is happening
It's a rare opportunity to have this type of while
it's private, it's open completely to the public and
while the PFD does not recognize it as a park this
world, Wildlife Foundation supports quite frankly more
openness than even texas. Parks and Wildlife Department
can support. It's an incredible value to the community
It already has a 345 transmission line on the eastern
ports that bisects the property. While this would be
on the western edge, it's a second transmission line
high vaulted 3 45 transmission line.
I could go on. I'm passionate about my clients as everybody
is but I really would appreciate serious consideration
for route Z. And of course route seem odd even though
neither one of those affect directly our clients, it
affects every one of our neighbors and we all sit and
have a coca cola together. Thank you appreciate it
Mm hmm. Next up is Jr Turnbull
Good morning. J. R. Turnbull. This is my wife blair
Blood. Um I don't know really what to say right here
The we're just trying to keep trying to create a
home out in the country for our family to go to relax
and we can have some privacy and teach them the importance
of land and taking care of it. The values of it. We
don't understand where food actually comes from and
appreciate that stuff. That was the whole purpose of
buying the place to create all this, What's across
my fence is none of my business, but we had nothing
to do in creating all this. I don't I would rather
not have it on us, not to mention the we have
these must go through the gates being left open and
all that stuff or concerns also. Um and that part has
already been kind of
about how to say changed significantly since when we
purchased the property. Um
I don't know what else, sorry? Yeah, I mean, I would
say he um as a career rancher, it's a daily basis where
we're like living on the ranch um that we've submitted
the house plans that were already set to break ground
before the initial town hall meeting was meant to discuss
this, and we're a family that's on the property on
a daily basis, raising cattle raising Children. Um
and all of those concerns that come with, there's already
a transmission line on one side of our property. Um
So we took that into account when trying to pick a
spot to build our house and so this has halted the
entire plan. So just I believe that um being a family
that's on the ranch on a daily basis, working cattle
to sustain, you know, untouched land is um just something
we'd like you to consider and all the properties.
Thank you all for being here.
Mhm. Next up is jay car,
Good morning Commissioners,
My name is jake Are I have a ranch in the middle
of this mess. It's been in my family since 1949.
I live on the ranch.
My wife and my father,
we've run the ranch were there every day on a constant
basis and I take care of my ranch. Like I would say
your backyards, It's very unusual. The ranchers kept
pristine.
There's not another ranch around that looks like
we spend all our time there. It's a rescue, there's
no animal shot there. My wife rescues animals from
all over and they come back and release them on the
ranch.
If I do not understand why burke Holland has allowed
all this and why the line just can't be tea and stay
on their property.
There's a just no reason to go across a virgin piece
of land. There's not an easement, there's not anything
on my land. It's clean piece of land which is very
rare today
and
It's going to end up being within probably 1000 ft
of my homes.
I just don't know what else to do.
Please consider not taking in
that will do that. Thank you for being here.
Next up is Kathy web team.
Mhm,
mm hmm.
Thanks
first.
Thank you.
Good morning. Mr Chairman Commissioners Kathy Webb
King here on behalf of the Turnbull family and the
Carr family there in the northwest corner of this study
area and and they have participated in earnest in this
project. Early on file, participated in the open meetings
um public meetings and then also filed extensive testimony
to detail the impact of these various segments on their
property and um I've told them trust in the process
the process is there, you have evidence in the record
to discuss you know, your impacts and we've worked
in earnest throughout this process and appreciate all
the parties that have all done so um with regard to
the commission standards as you know, um The rules
talk about land use, compatible land use moderating
impacts where possible to landowners. In this case
we have um the car in Turnbull properties are surrounded
On three sides really buy property owned by Burke Hollow
Corporation. That that property is 29,000 acres has
been leased for wind development has a new Blackjack
Wind farm that's um going in service as we speak I
think and um is also leased for uranium mining in this
area. The the record is clear. This the documents I
handed you are just reference materials compilations
of of evidence in the record. Just to give you the
visuals. I'm a very visual person and sometimes that
helps. Um So up in the northwest corner is the Grissom
substation that was uh
purchased. The property was was installed. It was all
installed by agreement with Barkalow after Mr Carr
and Mr Turnbull um took ownership of their properties
And of course Mr Carr talked about he's had generations
on the property but Mr Turnbull purchased the property
more recently but there was no substation there when
he did. You have one minute. So with regard to N. And
T. We put extensive information in the records. The
next map on there. The second map shows the specific
bifurcation of these properties. And when people talk
about bifurcation in this case bifurcation that goes
right through the hearts of these properties separates
them into two. Equal parts are roughly equal parts
That is bifurcation and that is what this commission
has always tried to avoid. I think it's something that
ap considered in their filing in there um identification
of route T. It's not a um this is not just requesting
a simple rubber stamp. What what the utility filed
there's extra evidence in the record of why that is
a reasonable choice in the overall thing. We did sign
on to the original um modified route but we understand
your concerns about that. We do want to make sure that
if um the next listing there is a listing of all the
routes all the segments sorted by cost. The way this
case came forward. The environmental assessment shows
five routes more or less ranked very very close and
um L. M. And N. N. N. T. In order of cost
he is what ap is recommending and what what is we support
L. And M. Are also less cost and imminently more reasonable
from our perspective than uh and because specifically
the impacts here as well as you know, all of the discussions
that we've had um Mr Forestier talked about occupational
hazard. Go ahead and wrap it up. Absolutely. And that
occupational hazard is an occupational hazard of the
property being used for electric generation. And it's
appropriate that transmission lines are associated
with that Mr car Mr Turnbull and the record make clear
the difference here in those land uses. Thank you very
much. Thank you.
That's all sir. Oh no, I'm sorry. Yeah, you knew I
couldn't, I had to mess it up once Kerry McGrath is
our next one speaker.
Mhm.
Good morning. Commissioners Kerry McGrath for ap texas
I want to just very briefly reiterate what we said
in our written filings and asked the commission not
to approve what's referred to as rounds mod because
the the modifications that are discussed are not well
defined in the record and we're concerned about being
ordered to build a route that's not specifically defined
Um The BOJ's address routes. Semen on page 16 of the
PFD and say the newly proposed route has not been evaluated
by ADP texas and the A. L. J. Has rejected the Aligned
interveners, untimely emotion for additional discovery
concerning the route. There is not sufficient evidence
to support this hitherto unstudied route which was
proposed via the filing of a stipulation after the
close of the discovery period and shortly before the
hearing, ap texas and other parties had no opportunity
to vet and respond to that proposal. The doj is denied
the Aligned interveners, late efforts to litigate these
modifications, both before and during the hearing and
many of the assertions regarding rounds mod and a line
interveners briefing lack evidentiary support. So uh
we are more than willing to work with the aligned interveners
of the commission's inclined to approve route Z and
work with them on minor modifications, but we asked
the commission not to approve routes, seem odd because
it's not well enough to find. Thank you. Thank you
sir,
can I ask you a question here? Um in in the record
is Mhm How much of this line is needed for reliability
in the region? How much is needed for the wind farm
Obviously we know we have a steel facility and things
that are going in but how much of it is reliability
that's related to the wind farm versus the steel facility
in the region, this line is part of a series of lines
that are ERCOT approved to serve both the steel facility
and additional industrial growth in that very north
of Corpus Christi. So it is entirely a reliability
related project. It's been deemed critical by ercot
reliability and as part of the 18 Corpus Christi North
Shore project which is intended to address just an
expected load increase in the area. That's right. Both
the steel mill and other facilities.
Any other questions for this 1? No thanks, thank you
these, these are never easy. Um and typically
I know this is critical um Mhm. This is a critical
line reliability, but anytime we hear oral arguments
I usually by the best too take some time to process
that digested. So I'm happy to hear anything thoughts
comments, but I also want to make sure that the entire
commission has time to digest what we've heard today
Any any thoughts, comments? No, just looking at the
the universe of options before us. Um Look if route
t again, a piece preferred um is selected, looks like
you know, we'll be hearing from the Edwards um and
I'm sure the O'Connors will have another opinion about
that if it's if it's in um I mean I understand bisecting
two ranches to family owned ranches, so
that's why it's a tough job. I'd be grateful for the
time to digest. Um We're choosing between neighbors
here. No, I would say similarly. I mean I love this
area of the state. Um I've hunted down there for for
many, many years and um I think that and have developed
wind farms, you know, been with companies that have
developed wind farms and um I know you know, they you
know, they have a visual impact but the land is still
available for use but probably not in the eyes of the
landholder in the exact exact the same way that one
where that has a wind lease on it. So I kind of
you know, I would like to look a little bit more at
those lines that go across the wind lease um they seem
fairly long, which might be a cost issue on the, on
the north side of the route. On the south side of the
route, it seems like the only um edge that that cross
would be the welder wildlife area on that side. So
I would like the time to keep looking at this and and
see where um hopefully we can bring it up at the next
open meeting. I think it's important that this line
get completed and we give it the appropriate time to
do so, but a little bit more time would be good for
me. Thank you. I agree as well. Um you know, the proposed
routes um that have been discussed today and that are
in the cell PFD I think are all, you know in some
respects, some of them are close calls and I think
it would be a good idea to have more time to evaluate
the routes as we are impacting property of of these
landowners that are taking the time to come here and
and others that would be potentially impacted by the
transmission line. Um you know, the line is important
as I stated earlier, it's been in critical for liability
by ERCOT it's part of a broader package of transmission
projects that are intended to meet expected load and
and enhance reliability in the corpus Christi area
and um with that respect I think you know as we set
out to do the last open meeting we took out we took
up this case is you know, we're we're trying to balance
reliability and cost um and and I think it's important
to take the time to ensure that we strike the right
balance in selecting the route.
Yeah, well we'll put all, none of these decisions are
never easy but it's critical for reliability across
our entire state. Let's table this item until the next
open meeting. What's we'll be ready to make a decision
next open meeting on this item given the criticality
of it.
Well I appreciate I appreciate all of the witnesses
who spoke today for being here. Thank you for your
time and your efforts that you put into this issue
Item 11 is tabled until the next open meeting which
brings us to item 12 mr Journeay could you lay this
out for us? (item:12) Item 12 is docket 52074
application of Southwestern Public service company
for approval of a consultant fee writer A revised proposed
order was filed on October 13 and I have a memorandum
with proposed changes to the revised order.
Thank you sir
in general like the proposed order but the have some
concerns about the carrying cost recovery fee as including
an equity returns rather than just cost of debt, any
after discussing I agree or any any comments on the
case. I agree. I think there's a several issues. I
think one is um the application is filed has a retroactive
time period that will have to address in terms of um
you know, potentially considering making the proposed
order um are included revising the proposed order and
include an effective date. Um That we use the date
when the order is signed. That way we're not sort of
using the back date because SPS didn't ask for interim
rates as well. So Um I agree with you on the carrying
charge interest rate. I think that's a very high interest
rate of 7.13% And I think we have some options to use
um you know commissioner approved interest rates for
customer over building and under building. Um commissioner
approved interest rates for deposits or or we could
even use the cost of debt from the last um rape case
That SPS filed, all of them would be substantially
less than the 2% and 4% range. And um I also think
that it's important to lay out that any over under
recovery um should be reconciled and SPS is next um
annual consulting fee writer case um as we want to
ensure that um that money gets screwed up and in the
next case. So I think there was a few issues in there
and I guess three is I'm sort of seeing
that would need to be addressed the effective date
the carrying cost interest rate um and reconciliation
of any under or over recovery and revising the date
to address those three issues.
Oh, I'm sorry the the under recovery or over recovery
by the writer that we approved approved here today
and addressing that any over recovery or under recovery
um reconciling that in the company's next consulting
the rape case next year. So they followed on an annual
basis and just making sure the revised order has language
in there that would address that issue. Gotcha.
It's the same here. Mr Chairman. Um Look if nobody
brought it up, I was going to bring it up way to
cost the capital may be problematic for down the road
as a presidential effect um as as we continue to review
these cases and as their scale expands, I mean it's
it's one of one thing to consider these small and I
hate to apply de Minimus amounts but they're they're
small right now but we need to get ahead of this. So
if we're prepared to do that today, I would support
that wholeheartedly. Okay,
thoughts. I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense what
both of, y'all said, especially given that this is
it was essentially alone, not invested capital that
receives a return on equity.
So then also, I think your point about addressing this
and said the president sooner rather than later is
helpful for these companies to know what our expectations
as a commission are and so they know that we can set
that standard. So they're not today. And their investors
are not surprised when the amounts are bigger,
anybody have a motion. So with that
we need to pick a rate. That's right. So we are going
down to a weighted cost of debt. I just yes, I'd go
with the cost of debt. This bs has cost of debt. Okay
And my understanding. Okay. Right. And and my understanding
based on uh commissions house feedback, is that the
cost of that would be 4.34%. I think that's right in
this case. Okay. 1.3 something with with the I guess
I guess delegation for you to insert whatever it is
from SPS last rate case in in the revised order, which
I believe is 4.34. But if you go back and see it's
a little bit different. Um I think that's what we're
mainly approving. Set. Set the return at the on the
carrying costs. That SPS is cost of debt from the last
race there last rate case. Okay, So that's your
I think that makes sense. I think that makes sense
Um You know, 4.34%. I mean, we could go lower to 2.35
or 2.21. Um I'm kind of open on it. But if you
you know, there's agreement on 4.34. I'm fine with
that.
Yeah. Just as long as a consistent approach for me
you know, as long as they can look back and All right
this is what the universe is that. It makes sense logically
It's a short term that. So we'll treat it consistently
across the board. We're talking about rates right?
We're not talking about consumer deposits over building
or under building so we can tie it to a known figure
from a prior rape case. That I think that makes its
consistent with terms of rate making, you know policy
I guess good point. And your intent is to apply that
same rate going forward to the next reconciliation
of any under or over recovery balance that's carried
Yes. So language in the order and and this is potentially
you know, something for y'all to consider. Would would
be to the extent that the approved rates differ from
the amounts already collected under SPS is 2020 consulting
fee writer, if any SPS must reconcile any over or under
recovery in next year's consulting fee writer application
with interest on on over or under recovery calculated
using ah the cost of that from SPS prior rape case
The most recent rate case most recent rate case. Yes
Okay, so I that language works for me to be added to
the the border
the
we want to set the motion to include the effective
date the date the order is signed, you mentioned, the
timing is that I think that makes sense. Um given the
fact that you know, the time period that they're referred
to in. Their application is now expired. Um that was
September one through 31 December 2021 SPS didn't include
um a request for interim rates. So in order to just
make it clean, just you know, make it effective from
the date the order is signed by the commission.
That makes sense to work for you. Okay. So we got him
you know,
building blocks together this motion to set the writers
Yeah. No, no, that's what if somebody wants me to say
it. I'm writing it out. Alright, but go ahead if you've
got it. So move to adopt the proposed order as modified
by amending the effective date to the date the order
is signed. one um two
tie the cost of debt to the last great case fair. And
then third was the additional troops.
Yeah, that's true of the paragraph she just read yes
and I will say maybe tie instead of the cost of debt
Maybe say tie the carrying cost associated with with
the writer um to SPS has cost the debt from their most
recent base rate case.
And it's modified by my memorandum. Okay, So move to
adopt as modified by commissions discussion on this
case. Exactly. I love it. We got a motion second
in a motion and a second all in favor say aye don't
oppose the motion passes. Teamwork. The next item is
consented 14 mr journey.
(item:14) Ah 14 is docket 52314 is the application of
TMP to reconcile their final amS cost. A proposed order
is filed on october 19th. No exceptions or corrections
were filed on that order.
Thank you. Sir. Thoughts comments on this one. Mm hmm
Yeah. So
I I believe we need to exclude exclude expenses related
to dock at 47472. Uh yeah, to um with the principle
being that only those expenses tied to um break cases
you know, are are allowable. So we need to remain consistent
with a policy that you just can't lump in other proceedings
that aren't rate cases to recover your costs. So that's
that's 1st and 2nd issue for me
Doc at force 742 not a rate making proceedings. So
that's those expenses aren't recovered in this. Aren't
able to recover in this proceeding.
I agree. I am. I think we can approve the proposed
order with modification to exclude All of those expenses
all the great case expenses from back at number 4 74
72. Mm hmm. Some of those great cases are duplicative
or and definitely don't apply to a rate making proceedings
And look this, this is just to dovetail and support
us because I know people are gonna bang down our door
about this. It's the law. I mean you can't apply uh
expense recovery to something that's not a rape case
So go change the law. You want to do that? We need
to have a bright line. Um Bright line on this president
I think it's important. And it's the law. As you say
it's important.
It's pretty straightforward. I'm on the bandwagon.
Alright. Any other blood tracks?
All right. So um get a motion on that. I would move
to approve as modified to exclude expenses related
to dock at 47472. All right. We have a 2nd 2nd. All
in favor say, aye, aye. Don't oppose the motion passes
Item 15 Mr Journeay (item:15) Item 15 is docket 52356 petition
of sweat co for approval of a consultant fee writer
A revised proposed orders filed on December 30 and
no exceptions or corrections to the revised order were
filed.
It seems to be a similar problem here. Um
I suspect we have similar thoughts about what's being
used.
How do we feel about using the same methodology methodology
on the cost of death from the last great case. I agree
we have to have a bright line clear precedent on that
and I support using the casa DE
the most recent base rate case
ah thoughts on Mhm. The over under recovery that we
had on the last one. We can start that language. Same
language in there, correct?
Ah Alright. So we
work on a motion to approve approve the proposed order
modified to set the carrying costs on fees to the cost
of debt from approved by the commission on swept codes
last most recent rape case. In addition to an ordering
paragraph
that to the extent the approved rates differ from amounts
already collected under swept coast interim rates.
Whitcomb must reconcile any over and under recovery
in next year's consulting fee rider application with
interest on over under recovery calculated using its
cost of debt as a proven its most recently case methodology
Looking forward.
All right
motion to do that. So I would move that seconded, we've
got a motion and we got we got a preemptive I other
three any all in favor say aye none opposed motion
passes. You got everything you need. Yeah, so much
for that high school teacher said don't use that so
much.
The next few items were consented which brings us to
item number 18 mr Journeay (item:18) item 18 is docket 52929
uh notice of violation of OCI Alamo one For
violations of commission rules. A draft preliminary
order was followed on February three.
Alright, this is related to violations preliminary
order. It says to me any other officer comments.
Okay, I was good with the preliminary orders. Um Obviously
these are very important cases that will be um you
know, thoroughly evaluating as part of our weatherization
efforts and so um I'm good with with the preliminary
order in this case right now. Yeah and and it's the
same for me Uh I can't overemphasize how the importance
of of these dockets um as we examine who did what and
when what remediation action was taken and when um
and trying to show a good faith effort that everybody's
trying to comply. So I look forward to seeing the results
from this.
Certainly breaking new ground with these.
Alright, is there a motion to approve the preliminary
order? Still moved second? All in favor say, aye, I
don't oppose the motion passes item number 19 please
Mr Journeay (item:19) item 19 is docket 52931 it's a notice of
violation of by texas. Big springs for violations of
commission rules and ERCOT protocols related to the
winter weather stuff. Drop culinary order was filed
on February three related to that related to that stuff
Yes sir, a similar issue. Any thoughts, comments. Mhm
Same thoughts on this one. Very important. Look forward
to seeing the results
bingo. Alright, is there a motion to approve the preliminary
order Second all in favor say, aye, aye, I'm not opposed
the motion passes item number 20 please (item:20) Item twenty's
project 21072 the go for natural gas capacity Commission
staff filed amendment random with a proposed order
That would grant exceptions to the requirements of
25 1 72 regarding the annual report and publication
and information.
Thank you sir. This is annual process, thoughts, questions
comments, man, I disagree with the logic behind computation
excluding renewables on this thing. It totally defeats
the legislative policy when they enacted it? I'm fully
realized. I may be a lone ranger on this. Um, the world
is changing and the the amount of dispatch hable versus
intermittent has has really come into play in terms
of the calculation or what we have to look at for resource
adequacy coming into place and understand well said
And um, so no, I mean, I understand where the rule
was formulated under the thinking that it's all in
how you read that one line of statute excluding renewables
Ah
anyway, I think you could bear some some digging into
this, but I realized this needs to move forward. But
um, I've, I've said my piece in the workshops and and
other commission proceedings that the legislature intended
that gas needs to be a dominant resource Adequacy tool
and this was a, a mechanism that they built to ensure
that. So if we don't count renewables in this equation
then it cuts the policy. So that's my piece. Is this
Well, but is this a rulemaking issue at the commission
or a legislative issue and statutes? Well, it's, it
could cut both ways. I I agree. But what else would
you put it in there if you're going to anyway? I'm
just trying to, I'm trying to get in the mind of a
legislator and it is, it's You make an important point
that the legislator starting January 1, 2000 different
world a different world.
Yeah, so your point is well taken. Is this a rulemaking
or is this a source of clarification? The legislature
I think it would be a great opportunity for the legislature
to discuss it. Um and I will be deferential to uh to
the will of this commission um in moving forward with
the rule and affirming it. But clarity would be great
for all of us other thoughts.
I got another alleged wreck to work on. Oh great, okay
all right. We do need to approve the proposed order
We have a motion to do that.
Is there a motion to approve the proposed order? Second
all in favor say aye,
unopposed. Abstaining Alex. Can I abstain. Can I abstain
Stephen if that's your wish sir. I'd love to abstain
on this one. You can't get a night out of you. Sure
that's not an abstention sir. No, it isn't taking a
position. I disagree with you
in between two worlds. Here. Trying to politic and
diplomatic. The will. The commission is determined
by three sir. That's true.
We have three eyes and one Nay motion motion passes
well done sir. I don't have anything on items. 21 through
25 which brings us to item Um just real quick. I wanted
to touch base on 24 um on our most recent filing just
briefly. (item:24) Um so um thank you for calling for your filing
on the backstop reliability service. Um there are just
a couple of points, there are you know thoughts I wanted
to share and I know we're in the process of um hire
an independent consultant and we'll be looking at a
lot of issues uh more thoroughly as we look to to build
the backstop um and and I understand um you know ERCOT
made recommendations to ensure that we have an efficient
implementation or or at least provide recommendations
on how we can most efficiently implement a backstop
reliability service. Um so in that as I look at ERCOT
filing and and thank you for that um that is important
to know what would be most efficient, I really want
to ensure that we leave um cost allocation on a lower
ratio share basis um tied to coincidence at peak load
on the table that that was a very important design
feature of the memo I put out and and it was ultimately
became part of the chairman's memo and then into the
blueprint um that that piece of cost allocation is
really important. I recognize that might complicate
settlement and everything but I want to just make sure
that um that remains on the table, that is a piece
a central piece of the backstop in that it would um
provide an incentive for demand response
in with that service. The other um thought that I wanted
to share or at least encourage your ERCOT and others
to explore is that in the recommendations for efficient
implementation. ERCOT states that the deployment of
BRS resources um could be used via scott and rug processes
um as we enter into this new world of ERCOT reforms
with firm fuel product and and now BRS um you know
we're ERCOT is sort of using the rug process not only
for reliability in general as they have throughout
the summer and and into the winter, but rock is being
used to um you know from an operational basis now um
to um bring on, don't feel capable units with on site
fuel oil storage and now ERCOT is recommending the
rug process with BRS and I just want to make sure that
as we um move forward with these ERCOT reforms especially
firm fuel product um as we solidify that that we that
ERCOT makes sure that there are no unintended consequences
from the direction that the process is currently um
headed in in the air ERCOT stakeholder process um and
and would encourage your cut to work with the stakeholders
to ensure that Any changes to the rug process in the
future um you know, via NPR to 93, that's very clear
cut but I just want to make sure that ercot opens up
that hood and ensures that there's not any unintended
consequences that will negate the ERCOT reforms and
actions that we're seeking to take to en enhance reliability
and resiliency in the future?
That is all I have. Thank you. Is it is it fair
to say be careful. That's okay. I agree What? All right
thank you. Commissioner kovacs and other thoughts,
comments on their own.
That brings us to item 26. (item:26) Item 26 This project Class
2934. Review rules adopted by the Independent Organization
Commission. Staff out a memorandum with the proposed
order that would approve rules approved by the Technical
Advisory Committee on January 31 and the associated
ERCOT impact statement.
Thank you sir. A couple of rules seemed pretty straightforward
to me but happened here comments questions, thoughts
based on my review of the guide revisions, I I'm comfortable
with them and um would be in favor of approving. Same
here. I I know that we're working through all of our
processes and in terms of how we we view these moving
through uh both the subcommittee uh level of review
at ERCOT and then tack and then finally board approval
and then our subsequent ratification. Um we're gonna
get there. Um and all of these were unanimous. Um it
showed a good collaboration from all stakeholders to
get these through. So I support I would tend to agree
with Commissioner Mcadams process questions. Um I don't
want to feel like we're rubber stamping things at the
very end of the process. I want to be able to have
some time to be able to understand the pros and the
cons of each one rather than get something filed the
day before we have to vote on it and uh look forward
to, you know, working with staff to figure out how
we improve the entire Change in this dynamic as we
go forward 100% agree and we're in a period of transition
and that will be, I think that is something I know
the new archive board has made a priority oh, to change
and improve the process of these kind of changes, this
doesn't happen overnight, but I think yes, your point
that sending something down to come back and last minute
is not not a ideal efficient streamlined process
and what get there working with the new ERCOT board
Oh, but take a little time to sort it out. Great, I
agree, yes, Alright, is there a motion to approve the
proposed order
all in favor? Say aye not opposed motion passes, I
think we have anything on 27 through 29 which brings
us to (item:30) item 30, ask mr Woodfin to come up to discuss
last week's storm, the extreme winter weather event
and ERCOT operations,
response and performance dan Woodfin with ERCOT So
um last week, ERCOT started using official notifications
of the coming winter winter storm on thursday january
27th, so about a week ahead of time. We started warning
folks, this was coming issued an operating condition
knows at that time um the various global weather models
were still varying at that point um and continue to
vary all the way through the event into the event on
how deep the cold, how cold the temperatures were and
how much exactly precipitation, we were gonna get precipitation
part lined up at the end, but the depth of the cold
weather was, was still varying even as the storm was
upon us. Um, ERCOT continually prepared for load levels
that were based on the coldest of these global weather
model forecasts um, and the most icing impacts on wind
generation. So we, that was what we were preparing
for load wound up being within the level we've projected
with a peak demand on thursday evening of 67.9 gigawatts
and 68.9 gigawatts on the morning of friday february
4th, the wind turbine blade icing was significantly
less than the worst case that we had planned for At
the highest. We saw about 6.6 gigawatts of installed
capacity from the wind generation that was out due
to icing. Um, in spite of that icing in some areas
Uh, the actual wind production across the system was
about 15 gigawatts for thursday evenings peak And about
12 GW for Friday morning speak the thermal generation
uh, availability was good during the storm with very
few generation outages that could even possibly be
because of weather issues and we're in the process
of investigating that handful. Um, we did see some
generation that was unavailable due to gas restrictions
and particularly in north texas and a few other units
were outages or D rated as the, as the storm went on
due to gas pipeline pressure issues, more operational
issues. Um, online reserves remained very high during
the event. Most of the online generation was self committed
by, by ERCOT participants about two gigawatts of capacity
that would have otherwise been unavailable because
of the gas restrictions was committed by, ran on fuel
oil through most of the event. Some of that was self
committed for for some hours and some of it was rocked
by ERCOT If the mark participants weren't going to
commit that on their own, only two units were committed
for a few hours for a reason other than fuel oil. So
most of the reliability unit commitments we did were
due to the fuel oil. Um, with the exception of a few
intervals on friday evening real time prices generally
stayed low during the event. Obviously there was a
lot of, a few areas where people lost power due to
icing of local distribution lines and that kind of
thing. But overall there were no significant reliability
problems for the grid as a whole as a result of this
winter weather. So happy to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you dan questions, comments. Just a
comment. Um, dan, I thought operationally. Um, you
did what you were supposed to and thanks. So I think
the system worked in concert and I mean all systems
on on this occasion gas ERCOT we were all talking um
to a great degree As we as we move forward um I
wanted to highlight for the commission there was something
in our clips on February two. It was from the oil and
gas magazine. It was a editorial uh put forward by
heart energy. It identified something that you may
have seen during the event and maybe lives with encore
in their Permian system. Um They described a migration
from natural gas fired gathering pipeline compressor
stations. Okay so those compressor stations that move
molecules through the gathering system at the wellhead
to primary transmission lines that move across state
Um they described the phenomenon of conversion or at
least I'm sorry as they were building out those gathering
lines from 2018 to now, utilization of electric compressor
stations rather than natural gas fired compressor stations
to cope with environmental regulations which obviously
that's a dc thing that transcends down to the state
level but it's it was an excellent piece for us to
note a business trend that is affecting or could potentially
affect your operations and on course ability or https
ability or T and M. P. S. Ability out in the Permian
to normalize the the electric load um in tight conditions
brought on by cold weather. So uh the the takeaway
was Um flaring issues were a problem 2018 to now. Uh
environmental regulations came in that forced oil and
gas operators to cut those emissions thus they depended
more heavily on electric technology. electric based
technology and when um any type of even a localized
outage might be experienced that affects those gathering
systems because again it freezes, they go off and those
molecules don't move and they freeze. So I think um
everything that we have done is still uh allowing us
to manage that system because Ercot as they noted,
our encore as they noted, experienced a increase of
critical facility designations from 130 Prior to our
rural implementation to over 1100 out in the Permian
that's probably a fair amount of those compressor stations
that are now listed and accounted for on a megawatt
basis for rotating outages. So um, I just want to point
that out, this is just one more thing that you're having
to manage through right now, but that as a part of
our puc, ERCOT railroad commission's overhaul and will
certainly be envisioned in the mapping process. This
is something that's, it's coming to light now that
we are building and have built a system that is resilient
to cope with it.
Yeah, very, very good point. And that's why the new
rule as of November 30 in conjunction with the railroad
commission was so important in identifying that
critical infrastructure and we're seeing the benefits
of that, that's a rule making that happened in three
months ago and we've seen the fruits was that article
in our clips. It was and I just thought it was so
profound because we never saw the degree of gas curtail
or at least I don't remember it at the legislative
level hearing about this prior to two now, but it's
because of the build out of that infrastructure that
was experienced because of natural gas pipeline constraints
trying to get that crude and gas out of the Permian
and to build out those gathering lines so quickly to
get that crude and gas out of the Permian and they
were utilizing a different technology than they had
in the past that is dependent on our system. And so
our identification of that system and maintaining that
system is incredibly important now and that's why we
experience these this phenomenon of gas concerns um
now rather than in the past very insightful um Commissioner
Mcadams, do you think that there's any opportunities
to work from an environmental standpoint with TC Q
On on this issue? Um with respect to gas compressors
versus electric compressors and any additional resiliency
we can gain by, I think as they as they move forward
with their their rules and regulations, it just behooves
all of us railroad puc, which we're doing through through
turk and and the other organizations created by the
reforms from the legislature. Um I think we all need
to collaborate about, okay, when, when you make a move
what are the unintended consequences within our regular
regulatory ecosystems that we need to account for great
point, very insightful information. Um I had a couple
of, I guess, questions or comments to dan. First of
all, thank you very much for for your hard work from
an operational standpoint. I mean, I think it's just
resound that ERCOT did a great job in doing their job
last week. And um, all of the actions we've been taking
up until then with the commission and ERCOT um, I had
an opportunity to show their stripes right last week
in terms of weatherization, bringing reserves on online
earlier through uh enhanced org. C that was effective
january 1st critical load designation as the chairman
and commissioner Mcadams have noted, um, you know,
sending signals to our firm fuel discussions that we
are going to have a firm fuel product in place that
led to business decisions for generators to have dual
fuel capable on site fuel oil storage. All of all of
those discussions and actions we've taken culminated
into very um successful operational actions for ERCOT
last week. And I come into you and, and in your work
um, I, I just have some questions that you may not
have answers to today, but I would like to understand
you know, I know there was, you know, ERCOT projections
on peak demand and and ultimately what, what, what
came out of peak demand was, was less. Um, I would
like to understand if if there's um some aggregated
price, responsive demand response information, um,
ERCOT can provide us whether it's in the post action
post in the report that or could be putting together
on on last week's weather or maybe you have figures
today. I know you can't break it down by different
types of customers but I would like to understand that
impact. I mean I can give you a preliminary answer
um By and large the pricing impacts during this event
weren't high enough to see really uh price responsive
demand. And I have some data on on the prices but we
do do a um to give you an absolute answer. What we
do is we work with the retail electric providers to
see what their customers did that report. We don't
start getting that data until um I believe september
and we published the report on an annual basis in the
december time period. So that would lead to the kind
of final annual report on price responsive demand.
But if you looked at at the prices um the real time
ERCOT never got above $95, that was the highest real
time ERCOT price. And that price only lasted um for
approximately um
uh one hour. So if I'm trying to respond to real time
prices there there wasn't a lot of incentive there
Um We can talk some more about the drivers but by and
large, I don't want to say prices weren't high but
they weren't you know anywhere near the maximum that
the h cap represents or anything along those lines
So the day ahead cleared around $400 for that day.
And the ancillary service prices kind of followed that
But again that was only for a couple of hours at most
Um so that's from a pricing story, there's not a lot
of incentive for demand to respond. I did read lots
of articles about folks voluntarily uh curtailing but
that wouldn't necessarily be on price. The one last
point I would like to share with you on that is while
um system wide the prices weren't high, there were
some high prices due to congestion. There were some
Length time periods where the price was $3500 but that
was at a resource node um and it was at a resource
note that couldn't respond to price. Um however, if
we had um for example controllable load resources on
a nodal price rather than Zonal average price, there's
a higher probability that that we would have seen more
price responsive demand and that feature is in your
phase one roadmap. Um so we are working through uh
incorporating that but that is not in place as of today
Thank you.
I appreciate you pointing that out. Commissioner Cobos
and one thing that our communications team did a great
job of identifying was in advance of the storm around
the state. We saw both co ops monies and independent
retail electric providers engage with their customers
And what that looks like in practice is the notices
you get an email saying keep your bill low this month
you know, use your smart thermostat engage in this
program or that program. And that's even though we
didn't see high prices, that's the ERCOT doing and
the independent retail ERCOT doing what it's supposed
to do. And that's what we, that's what we want to see
We want those companies competing for customers by
offering more capabilities, more resources, more rewards
refunds, credits for utilizing demand response. And
so it's, that's an excellent sign. We don't like to
see events like that. But during extreme weather, events
like that, it's excellent to see the competitive retail
ERCOT healthy and competing in those initiatives and
programs well. And as you point out Mr chairman, they
were incentivized to, they were trying to keep those
prices low because they were gonna have to pass those
on, on their meter charges. So even though we didn't
spike, we don't know, it might have been their monthly
hedge may not have been for the low they need to serve
in which they still need to conserve. They still don't
want to have to go out and by additional megawatts
So it's good to see that ecosystem
acting as it should and, and responding in a healthy
way
questions comments for dan no, I guess I, since we're
talking about the storm, I just want to say one thing
and that is, I appreciate the efforts and the response
that went into this, not only among, you know, folks
here in Austin, but most importantly, the folks that
actually get out there, the lineman, the crews that
were actually um, working on these distribution lines
that had been down that cut off power to our different
regions. They don't deserve enough credit, we don't
give them enough credit um, that they get out there
during dangerous times and I didn't hear of any accidents
which I think is great and hopefully every one of them
comes home every day. And so that's a great point.
Commissioner Mr Chairman. Just the amount of, of bucket
trucks and lineman that were deployed on this thing
Look as I said, if this was a military operation, everything
was humming in concert. They had pre deployed assets
Um, for our transmission and distribution companies
are generators were teed up ready to go. Um, machines
were weatherizing. Uh, matter of fact, the forced outage
rate was incredibly low and, and sustained at a low
level um, for a long time. So whether this is just
PTSD from yuri or uh, people's fear of penalties or
just everybody wanted to do the right thing because
nobody wanted to be cold. Um, the system worked. Yeah
these are real reforms enacted an incredibly short
amount of time yielding dividends in an extreme weather
event
dan canon or cut entire ERCOT team. Thank you all.
Not only for the excellent performance last week, but
all the hard work over the last year that got us to
the point where we can not only go through an extreme
weather event like that that shuts down airports, highways
But go through it with such robust reserve 86 85,000
MW at the peak on friday morning That even if we had
experienced the 76, megawatt peak that You, that would
have been the peak load of Yuri, we still had another
10,000 MW in cushion. Um, that's that's an extraordinary
accomplishment in a very, very short amount of time
So thank you all for all the hard work the puc team
who's been digging deep to write these rules to get
these policies and reforms initiated. I echo Commissioner
Gladfelter his point about all the men and women sitting
out in the cold even if there wasn't a problem yet
just sitting out in the out in the cold days and nights
waiting for a problem. A lot of folks at R. T. Dus
went out to sit at substations that they were never
needed thankfully, but they were there away from their
families away from the warmth of the house, their houses
Um, I would also like to thank TDM chief kid and their
whole team for running the state operations center
as smoothly and as efficiently as they always do. Um
and especially our partners at the railroad commission
T. C. Q relates to water issues and most importantly
text the coordination, the new coordination that we've
set up to have teammates from each of our agencies
shoulder to shoulder in the state operations center
during events like this showed its its benefits, textile
was getting roads prioritizing roads that needed to
get crews to local outages. The Railroad commission
team was on hand incredibly responsive to the very
few minor issues we had during that event. So all around
an extraordinary effort to keep
grid reliable people in texas warm in their homes and
safe. Uh, and of course I appreciate the governor's
leadership throughout the event. Um, he was in constant
communication with the people of texas as were the
agencies involved. So extraordinary. I hope extraordinary
to see what all of these teams combined have been able
to do
to ensure reliability in such a short amount of time
Thank you. Chairman, thank you Chairman for getting
out there and serving as our face for the commission
and at the at the sock throughout the weather um, event
and um speaking on our behalf and all the hard work
that we have been working on for the last several months
in concert with ERCOT and other stakeholders. So thank
you for your hard work during that week at the sock
appreciate. And it's not just me at the stock, we've
got a whole crew of people. Sean chuck nick Mackenzie
at the soccer and there 24 7 sleeping under the desk
kind of thing. Glad you weren't alone. Yeah. One more
One more shot at Mr Chairman, if I could because I
know this will probably make the local news stations
all over the state, but we sincerely appreciate the
participation and responsiveness of the consumers out
there to um, well, we were all wondering if everybody
would go home and jack up their heaters to 85 degrees
um, and just try to make their house as warm as possible
But uh, the consumer classes of all types seemed to
do the right thing in cold weather, which is not overburden
any particular system but just act responsibly. And
it was incredible to watch in real time on the part
of of us here at the commission in ERCOT in the control
room. I'm sure so um, I I hope everybody
and our industrial partners, thank you for everything
you did. Alright, well put, thank you gentlemen,
That concludes business on item 30, which takes us
to item 31 (item:31) regarding state and federal legislation
affecting electricity markets, etc, etc. As you all
know, the federal government last year passed the Infrastructure
investment and jobs Act, which means a lot of federal
money out there, particularly related to I don't electricity
and electric infrastructure and to make sure that texas
is leading from the front on maximizing the state's
ability to benefit from those federal dollars and to
ensure we use every resource possible to the most benefit
of our citizens. I've asked Commissioner Cobos too
take on an initial review of possible applications
for those funds and to make sure that over the next
months
and potentially years the state of texas gets the most
benefit from those federal funds. Thank you. Chairman
Lake, I happily accept that assignment and look forward
to working with the utilities and other stakeholders
that could stand to benefit from this funding is is
chairman stated, there's billions of dollars out there
for grid resiliency and reliability. And my goal is
to try to work with the various stakeholders to try
to maximize the amount of funds we can get for texas
for these very important initiatives. Thank you. Mr
Chairman. I might add that. I have mentioned this in
other open meetings but I've had discussions with some
of our national labs um to uh potentially help us with
some modeling efforts. Um I've had those discussions
with ERCOT as well uh as well as some of the universities
around the state and uh trying to put together a little
plan but some of this might or might not rely on federal
funds but we will work with Commissioner Cobos and
the entire Commission to make sure that strings attached
are very very few and that uh we can create something
that's great for the state to allow us to analyze our
grid going forward very much appreciate that and I
know, you know, I've been working on how to move those
initiatives, your initiatives forward a lot of opportunity
In fact, we've seen some of the work product in some
segments of the industry related to modeling and there's
room for improvement if you will. Ah All right, thank
you all and thank you Mr Chavez.
I don't have anything on item 32 or 33 which brings
us to an update from our executive director on item
34. (item:34) Thank you. Mr Chairman Commissioners, just to uh
go along with our our kudos for everything that happened
in State Operations Center. I wanted to let y'all know
I received calls from multiple other state agencies
and companies about how instrumental to our success
at the sock sean hazard is and how he streamlines everything
everyone knows that they can get the most updated and
critical information from him. So I want to make sure
to mention him as well because him is our Emergency
Management Coordinator is is instrumental in all of
our efforts at the State Operations Center.
Um a couple of meetings ago I reported that we had
hired a Chief Administrative Officer, much to my delight
and someone that can focus on getting Commissioner
Gladfelter his office built in a in a timely manner
So Hayley is back there. So I just wanted to put a
face with a name and um does the definition of timely
only apply to starting that time. Now, I believe on
that project timely is whatever Commissioner Gloat
felt he feels. So we're probably starting from behind
but I would hope that the clock would start over now
that we have a different face to to you know really
implement that um going forward so and patient. Yes
sir and thank you for that. We appreciate it. Um and
finally we have a turk spot to fill Laurie Simpson
is leaving constellation, she fills our generator segment
seat on turk so we'll be running that same process
that we did last time where I'll be asking for applications
and recommendations for someone in the generator segment
to to fill that spot and I'll come by and talk with
you all before I make a final decision, appreciate
that. Thank you your questions. Your comments for thomas
All right. That brings us to item 35 and 36 but by
the way, it should be noted that you get a new office
too. So don't blame this all true. Yeah. No, absolutely
not. But I would not, I would not even try to put
my needs in the same stratosphere as your needs to
get your your work done sir. So yes. So I think that
was Stephen but you couldn't tell because of the mask
that
one More. One more time.
All right. We don't have any other business on item
35 or 36. (item:37) So having oh yeah, I'm holding up um having
convened in duly noticed. Open meeting the commission
will now at 11:05AM on february 10th 2020 to
hold a closed session pursuant to chapter 501, the
texas government code section 551.71551 point 074 and
551.76. We'll be back in a bit. Sure.
Closed session is hereby concluded at 11:30 a.m. On
february 10th 2022 the commission will resume its public
meeting. No action will be taken by the commission
regarding matters discussed in closed session. There
being no further business before the commission is
meeting, the Public Utility commission of texas is
hereby adjourned.