Good morning. This meeting of the public utility commission
of texas will come to order to consider matters have
been duly posted with the secretary of State of texas
for March 10th 2022. For the record. My name is Peter
Lake and with me today, or will Mcadams, Lori provost
and jimmy Gladfelter Mr Journey. Could you please walk
us through the consent items on today's agenda? Good
morning. Commissioners by individual ballot. Following
items were placed on your consent agenda 35 17 18 2021
23 24 27. And I need to announce that commissioner
Cobos recused herself on item three. Thank you sir
Is there a motion to approve the items just described
by Mr?
All in favor say aye. And opposes the motion passes
We'll move to the public comment portion of our agenda
today. I'd like to remind parties and stakeholders
as always, this should not approach the table unless
oral argument has been granted or they have been invited
by a commissioner. Uh This time we'll open for public
comment. Uh not oral arguments. Uh Any oral arguments
related to a specific agenda item will be heard when
that item is taken up. This segment is for general
comments only speakers will be limited to three minutes
each. Mr Junior. Do we have anyone from the public
signed up to speak? No sir. No one signed up this morning
Thank you sir. Public comment is now closed. We will
not be taking up items eight and 25 which brings us
to item number one (item:1)
Item one is docked at 47775. It's a. n. o. v. Um
against the city of Bartlett for violations of Pure
and commission rules. A proposal for decision was filed
January 26 exceptions and replies were filed and LJ
filed a memorandum declining to make any changes to
the PFD. In response, I have a memo with proposed changes
to the PFD. Thank you sir,
relatively straightforward penalty case but I would
love to hear your thoughts and comments on them. Yes
sir, thank you. Um My my thoughts were Mr Chairman
It is very clear cut in terms of the thresholds um
of of applying and and judging an infraction on the
part of a violation of both pura and ERCOT protocols
Um In my view, the PFD reflects a bridge, it is a
near term action on the part of the commission that
if not remedied by the by the municipal utility could
lead to more enhanced um findings later on right now
Um They under this ruling could be assessed $25,000
of a penalty but Pure grants us the authority Under
section 15.023. Administrative penalty. The penalty
for violation be in in an amount not to exceed $25,000
each day. A violation continues to occur is a separate
violation for the purposes of imposing the penalty
So it is my hope that by, by meeting the municipal
utility halfway here that they have time to enter into
an agreement to come into compliance under the law
and that they should consider this as a notice that
they need to come into compliance with the law. And
the reason for that is is very apparent. Winter storm
Uri has occurred. This commission has adopted a overarching
policy construct of we will ensure reliability on the
system. This is a reliability related infraction because
it impacts load shed allocation during the most dire
circumstances for the grid. So you've got to get right
you've got to get a transmission service provider that
can manage your load so that you can be allocated just
like everybody else. Otherwise you are burdening your
neighbors with that allocation while your lights stay
on and that's not right. So it is my hope that that
the message is received that they need to come into
compliance.
Well, put,
I was gonna say I'm an agreement here. I think that
it's obvious that this is not just an overlaps this
case oversight. This case has been going on for a long
time and I hope we can come to an agreement here at
the end. But I think that the penalty is, is appropriate
Um, and you know, the, the warning if I use those words
that you said Commissioner Mcadams about $25,000 a
day. Um, let's, let's get it there. It's a small amount
This is a unique case, but we just can't continue to
burden your neighbors and burden the rest of the people
of the state, we have to get on with this and register
as a transmission operator or find that entity that
will do it for you. I agree. I agree as well. Um
the city needs to come in compliance with the ERCOT
protocols, guides in tempura and um, particularly um
the issue of reliability and the load shedding practices
is very important. Um, you can't burden your neighbors
You need to come in compliance. They, this case has
been on the books for I think almost nine years and
so they've exhausted their remedies that ERCOT at the
commission and um, we need to come to a close on the
situation and um, I agree with, so is PFD and the assessment
of the administrative penalties um, from a policy perspective
going forward, I think, you know, you know, you've
got to comply and either register as a T. O. Transmission
operator or designate one and with perhaps need to
see if there's any kind of assistance that we can provide
to these smaller cities. Um, so that if they are struggling
to find a T. O. That will take them, um, that that
there is at least some, some framework to get them
some help. I know that there's not a lot of instances
there's maybe like four or five instances where this
has happened, but um, you know, they're the T. O. S
Are not required to take them, but um, we there's gotta
be some kind of assistance there. Um, maybe working
through the associations or something. If if they if
there is a situation like this, that there's some assistance
We can help on that end to make sure that they're just
not left, you know, out out to dry. I'm sure staff
will do everything to help accommodate an arrangement
and yes, too long the 12 months.
And I think it's safe to say Mr Mcadams speaks for
all of us when saying that issue, that warning has
been issued and will be, we'll be watching and helping
as we can.
Alright, is there a motion to adopt? Can I ask a question
MR Journey, is this is the 12 month time to come in
total compliance with the T. O. Uh, regulations. I
mean, it seems like that's a long time for such a small
entity to come into compliance. And I know there are
things that have to happen. If you're going to become
a transmission operator, it would seem unlikely that
they would become their own transmission operator.
They would contract with somebody because of the requirements
of having a, um, a transmission operating center and
a backup center and, and things like that according
to Newark rules. But um, is that in total compliance
or is there a way that we could push that to make
it sooner, since this has been going on for so long
I would read it as saying, you need to be in compliance
with the protocols are rules in bureau At the end of
these 12 months.
If you wanted to make it sooner, you're going to have
to modify required to be sooner
to me. Um, look, the day after this order is signed
there still out of compliance under bureau. And so
the clock is ticking. The cloud of, of a future penalty
is only growing darker by the minute. It's $25,000
a day and that adds up to the millions. So it behooves
the municipal utility to come into compliance as soon
as possible. And then, and this commission, as per
our conversation here at the diocese has warned that
we will take action.
So the clock's ticking. So just to clarify the, the
actual proposal has languages has on the, on the 12
months must comply with ERCOT requirement that a DSP
either register as a T. O. Or designated T. O. So that's
the focus of the 12 months, become a T. O. Or get
someone else to act for you within 12 months by within
12 months. Yesterday. It's a lot of time. That's plenty
of time, especially with nine years of practice,
Comfortable. 12 months. No, not at all. Would you like
to modify the, I would move that we modify the PFD
to say six months.
I might even go to 90 days. But I mean six months
is still an issue that we're going to see these guys
sooner rather than later, What's the message here is
you've got to be in compliance with these regulations
if they want to seek an exemption um in some fashion
fine, but they are part of the bulk electric system
which is interconnected with every other person in
this room and across the state. That's in our ERCOT
So, mhm. I think, I mean, I don't I don't even like
six months, but it seems like it's in the spirit of
what Commissioner Mcadams said a meeting in the middle
Mhm. Yeah, I would defer to your experience. I mean
you know, there's a lot of unknowns out there for this
utility uh one the the co op that could serve them
There's there's a lot of unknowns there. Um So I would
I would really defer to your experience here. How long
do you think it could take them to reasonably find
someone To act and that any agreement that one day
it could take one day or it could take 12 months. I
mean, it depends on how how quick you are to to find
that party, it takes two. It was pointed out. And so
I think we also as a commission need to hold the other
side of that, Be mindful of the other side and ensure
that we keep an eye on their whatever county party
they are. So, so the city is not held hostage. Um but
they got to get it done. And and the the other thing
I would I would add for us to consider is as per
commissioner, Tomo koizumi's comments, I think it behooves
the Public Power Association. Um again, this is this
is a larger policy issue for a subset of municipal
utilities that that we need to get worked through.
So, a broader policy construct needs to be framed out
by the texas Municipal League, the texas Public Power
Association, because we've got other utilities out
there. Um, So it with that 12 months is a reasonable
time. I mean, sessions occur every two years to to
construct some type of framework that would give us
that would get everybody under compliance commissioner
You you've alternatively given them the command to
either register as a T O, which I would presume includes
that they'd be able to operate as a T O when they
register, which means they have talked about perhaps
construction requirements, correct?
So, just to keep that in your head right, because they
only have a distribution feeder right now. So, I don't
know how, from a technical engineering standpoint that
could require what what Stephen is is advising, but
I agree with you. Commissioner Mcadams, um, with respect
to um, collaboration through the association's, that's
kind of what I was alluding to. Um, you know, through
TPP a with our staff to TML is a great organization
as well to make sure that the cities have At least
some kind of a framework to work through these issues
in the future. With respect to your timeline. Commissioner
got felt. Ei I see your points. I think 12 months is
a long time, especially for how long these this case
has been on the books. I I can live with with six
months. I mean I I kind of mentioned even a shorter
timeline, which I, but we do want to make sure that
they have enough time to, to come into compliance.
So I, I would be okay with six months, especially as
you think about, you know, um, it could impact load
shedding practices. Obviously we're planning for no
load shedding practices but we do have some er, we
do have winter and and seasons where you know, we,
we are focused on reliability and so six months to
me seems an appropriate amount of time
if you want to move it to six months, you of course
y'all can always grant some discretion down the road
if you want to, whether it's, it's said if, whether
you say anything in this order about it or not. So
so what I would propose is six months and um, to have
a uh, an interim filing at three months to tell us
where they are in this process. Um, if they choose
to become a T O and have to build a transmission operations
center um then we should grant some deference at that
point in time when we understand it, but not until
we um understand what route they've chosen because
it could be very quickly and but nor do we want to
put them at a disadvantage where someone's gonna hold
them hostage and say look you've got to do it. So I
think I would say um move the timeframe to six months
and um request a an updated three to the interim following
would ask them to tell us which route they've committed
to the status and the status and commissioners staff
will provide you updates on our progress on our progress
in helping facilitate any of this work as well. Thank
you Greg. Thank you. Alright, so we've got a pft that
it has as considering a motion to adopt a PFD amended
by both counsel memo and these six months changing
a 12 month timeline to six months with the interim
filing. It three months per commissioner glove lt's
description.
That's the motion. Do we have a motion second all in
favor say aye, unopposed motion passes
Item number two Please sir. (item:2) Item two is docket 51912
is the application of ap to amend the CCN in the b
referrals and Patricia counties. Pft was filed December
22 exceptions replies were filed so Elyse filed a letter
February two with corrections to the PhD. I have filed
a memo with proposed changes to the PFD. The Commission
heard our arguments at February 10 meeting and also
heard from some of the parties at the last meeting
The commission has again granted our argument on this
thank you sir. Last time we had a variety of options
Mhm. Come up the as we all know and have, I've been
clear about this is a critical line, so I think we
need to move forward with a decision one way or the
other today,
oral argument was granted because the uh contemplated
Route G was something that not that had not been discussed
publicly before and those stakeholders had not been
given a chance to present oral argument that being
said, uh we have heard from other stakeholders. So
any oral argument today, I think should be limited
to Route G. Is that work for y'all? Alright. Um and
I think to recount from last time, the the sentiment
were two thoughts on 22 commissioners were leaning
towards L and Commissioner Claude felt towards G. Are
those, are those still the leading, leading options
in your mind, Lng Okay, well, can I address G? Um So
I think I was the one who started this hornet's nest
and um I don't apologize for it, but I um I have
seen the error of my ways in this discussion primarily
for the issue that if we would um pick that route,
I fear the Corps of Engineers would get involved um
and require a longer term analysis under the waters
of the U. S. Um which would thus create a reliability
problem. Um And I don't feel like that is the appropriate
way for us to go in that regard. Um I also want
to say that um I characterized um the crossing of the
bark hollow property as industrial. Um And I think
there were numerous comments um back towards um us
or me in parentheses that said that that was a mischaracterization
and I agree it was a mischaracterization. It was the
choice of words that I used was wrong because we want
all the resources in the state and um it's uh it's
utilizing uh one's own property for energy development
of whatever sort that does not make it an industrial
property. So I wanted to say that I withdraw my my
support for Route G. I want to continue the discussion
on the other routes, but just at the head of at the
started the discussion to say that I'm not going to
push throughout G for a decision. Okay, thank you for
clarifying that any other sentiment for algae remaining
or can we take that off the table? No, sir, I'd like
to look at the map back to the old map, you know
that we can take off the table. Yes, in that case
because we don't have a need for oral argument related
to route G. Um Okay, so back to your question,
why don't you clarify that for the audience um as we
Good, good point jimmy, thank you. Um We've heard oral
argument on numerous other routes, we have not heard
oral argument on Route G. So we wanted to make sure
that stakeholders
with concerns related to Route G. I had the chance
to speak in front of the commission. Now that algae
is no longer under consideration, I don't think we
need to go through the oral arguments. So I apologize
for people taking the time to come up here to speak
about a route that's no longer under consideration
but thank you for your interest and concern. I think
we'll we'll move forward with the remaining routes
under consideration. And I think they're really in
an L. Um and given that we've we've heard from those
stakeholders before, I think, well, we will not have
any oral argument today related to this item. Yeah
And and since they're sitting here before us, I can
read body language pretty well, so, don't worry. Um
What,
So, so just real briefly, L has not been discussed
in this context. It was raised for the first time.
Yes, it's in the application as far as are all of the
26 rounds, but L has not been discussed. And it has
extraordinary effects on some of these property owners
And and and your comments last time were extremely
compelling to me. And that's what I was going to cite
here. So, in the interest of not trying to to managing
the effects of bisecting properties, especially large
tracts um
as as I advocated for l last time, it was a question
of distance, cost by section of properties, overall
impact. And um since mister O'Connor's Attorney's arguments
he was absolutely right that l does impact his tract
um vastly more than the previously considered one the
PFD. And then uh to um certainly other routes considered
it becomes a question of cost. It narrows down the
costs on the other options. So as we discussed, l last
time, um I would also point out that m is a viable
option Mm is an increase of cost of 1.4 million compared
to the low cost option, which is route L but it avoids
the car Turnbull's um it crosses mr O'Connor's tracked
at the neck of the property um in between those uh
locations of five because again he has those two tracks
in the center of the the area
and it also closely conforms to rights of way and recommended
a ep routes toward the southern end of the uh of the
proposed area.
So I would just throw that out there. Mr Chairman,
as further consideration as an attempt at compromise
to conform this project with our avowed principles
So, a slight increase in expense for fewer unless disruptive
by sections of property.
Thank you. So, thank you. Commissioner Mcadams. Um
you know, last open meeting, I was in a similar spot
of trying to see where um what what route would be
um the best with respect to cost length impacts the
properties. And since then, after the feedback that
we received at the last open meeting, I went back and
studied the routes a lot harder and have decided that
myself that m is what I would lean towards because
it has less impact to the O'Connor property um does
not like in continue to hit two more properties, the
term bo and the Kar properties and would cut into one
which is burke hollow rather than 10 and 12 with are
the two ranches car and in turn bow and one. I know
this uh my understanding is undeveloped land with cattle
and and potential wind farm um recognizing that there
could be impacts of the wind farm, I, my interest here
is to protect the property rights of of these, these
um these families here and so I lean towards him. Okay
so the same
slight increase in costs for less disruption on landowners
closer closer to property line's actually, it's a slight
decrease in cost from in. That's correct.
Okay, I'm sorry. But yeah, when I was shooting for
l of course you're talking about 100 and 30. Okay,
so consistent with PFD cheaper than L is, which you
were also talking to last more expensive than now,
but in exchange for more right away on property lines
less disruption to landowners.
So I think that that's a uh well, well put argument
from both of you jimmy, What's your, I tend to believe
that m is the appropriate round. I respect the um you
know, these are these are not easy decisions by anybody
These lines impact people all across the the region
It's just inevitable that somebody is going to be impacted
But I think the the right round.
All right. Do we have any
you're a pretty consistent agreement on him. Do we
have any desire to hear any stakeholder input at this
time? No, sir. I think our job is to call the play
this that's what we're paid to do here. All right.
We've got some other elements to consider in this docket
single circuit and a good cause exception for virtual
meetings. Everybody I know we need to clarify it's
a single circuit. I'm certainly comfortable granting
the good cause exemption for the virtual meetings during
the pandemic work for everybody. Yes sir, agreed Chairman
I just have one statement on behalf of I confer with
the O'Connor and mr O'Connor. They did not oppose route
OK, okay. Runs along the east side of the property
and it runs through the property line.
Right,
ERCOT
ever park. Now,
the internal process
moving off and avoiding the TNT and respect
I'm going to respect the O'Connor property which I
understand during agreement on ralph is slightly higher
cost but as we all know, these are cost estimates were
really large margins in there. I've gone over my one
seconds limit and I apologize but
the fact that there is any sensors between the problem
in your country.
Thanks. Mhm. You did indeed go over your zero sentence
limit and that'll be the last disruption we have until
this commission grants oral argument or ask somebody
to the bench
any other questions about that. Okay. Does anyone on
the commission desire to hear any more comments from
stakeholders on any of the routes under consideration
Jimmy. All right. So we've got a good cause exception
with a clarification that this is single circuit
and a modification to the PFD to route facilities along
route.
All right. Do we have a motion and adopt the changes
in commission Counsel's memo? Um which covers both
the single circuit. I would I would move to reflect
your comments um and the good cause exception. Mr Chairman
and the commission Counsel's memo clarifying single
circuit. We have a motion Is there a second second
All in favor say, aye, none opposed motion passes.
Thank you all. And thank you again for those folks
who came up here uh, for oral argument on g
mm hmm. These are as jimmy said, these are never easy
but I hope all take comfort in knowing that as everybody
could see this was a very comprehensive process and
much thorough evaluation. I went into this
thanks to all involved. Next time employees. MR journey
(item:4) Item four is docket 52397 application of swept code
implement a net Interim fuel surcharge and proposals
for decisions filed January 12 exceptions and replies
were filed. The LJ filed a memo recommending changing
to findings of fact and ordering paragraph that were
related to rape case expenses but otherwise declined
to make any changes.
There's this is certainly an interesting one. I would
love to hear you paul's comments suggestions.
Mr
mhm.
Um Yeah, I don't
I don't have anything right now. I kind of want to
hear it. We've we've had some similar similar conversations
regarding interest rates recently. I think we were
pretty unanimous and our thought that weighted average
cost of capital is not the right way to approach this
There's no equity component or capital investment involved
So I think that's, it feels like we can take that off
the table again. Uh The annual the proposed annual
interest rates are,
That's of course one way to take a cut at this. Ah
I think last time we
all had a sentiment to get as close as we could to
matching the interest rate of whatever the related
entity was receiving or paying on the their own debt
which seems to be a reasonable practice. That also
has very clear parameters as because there are comparable
debt agreements in place that we can use as a measuring
stick. So I threw out for consideration.
Mirroring the Interest rate in terms that's what you
received for its $500 million dollar bond issuance
last year. The term of five years at I think they received
1.6, interesting throw that out for consideration of
course. Happy to hear
Any other. I think it was also discussed. 1.2%. Um
to me I think you're 1.65% does reflect a little bit
of the longer term Duration um and perhaps a little
bit more risk but there's not a whole lot of risk to
this uh to this transaction. So um I would support
1.65%.
I agree as well. I think, you know, we're looking at
$148 million. I would prefer to elongate the recovery
period 2-5 years and I'm comfortable with your interest
rate proposal. Um I think the five year period um continue
mitigates the impact, continues to further mitigate
the impact on consumers and is also consistent with
the five year bombs. Yeah. And my overarching principle
here is I just want this is a new commission. So I
want us to try to establish a consistent path and as
as you say, this reflects the direction that we had
taken on their base rate case. So as long as we're
consistent um That's that's my first and an overarching
principle. So I would support you here, sir. Commissioner
just to make sure you know, this rule does have an
interest rate specified in it but it also has a term
We're we're popping both of them were popping both
of those given the conversation. Yes sir. Okay. Part
of that on the interest rate and the term is to provide
a very clear metric that yeah, reflects exactly the
terms that the indian question received when they borrowed
money. So it's a good consistent measuring stick if
you will. And as commissioner Cobos mentioned the by
extending the term and it's reducing the monthly cost
for our customers. So too two elements of logic there
I think both are beneficial to our ratepayers and consistent
with his commission. Mcadams said consistent with the
principles we have a commission are starting to lay
out and establishment and the principles that are sound
and we will. And it's also of course important to know
that the marketplace to know that we're going to plan
to continue adhering to those principles.
Alright. Any other thoughts on this 1? I guess we have
to address the right case expense issue. That's good
Yes, of course. The judge addressed that a little bit
in the, in, in their memo in response to exceptions
to. Okay, so they can seek recovery of the wreckage
expenses they were going to pay the city and then come
back as would come back in a future proceeding to have
us review those amounts and seek recovery.
I think that's a reasonable path forward,
correct the LJ's letter, yep, yep. And just to be clear
on this, I mean the rule gives you all the right to
move the recovery period. But um with all you've said
that will be your finding of good cause on why to deviate
off the interest rate in the room. Fair enough. Good
And then there's the issue that I think the parties
might have agreed not to address in this case but did
raise and that's the 10% of offsets themselves. Um
I think that's something the issue an issue we won't
address in this case and would defer to sub housing
x fuel reconciliation cases agreed, agreed.
Alright. So I think we're looking for a motion to adopt
the PFD With modifications to reflect a 1.65% surcharge
interest rate on a five year surcharge period
showing good cause a good cause finding to deviate
from the annually set interest rate because of the
length of the surfboards period
and concurrence with the LJ's letter on card rate case
expenses and said concurrence, do we have that motion
so moved second, all in favor say aye I don't oppose
the motion passes. The next item please. Mr Journey
was consented. Uh We don't have anything for six through
14 which brings us to ERCOT update on items 15
separate rental. (item:15) We've got to uh two issues discussed
today. I know commissioner Mike Adams has an item he'd
like to bring to the commission's attention or an update
if you will and I know you you have an update from
you've requested from ERCOT. What Start with the Commissioner
Matters 1st.
Yes sir. So I would like to lay out a topic uh
at a high level and for the ERCOT that's that watches
us all the time. Uh It is not my intention to opine
to make any type of policy move on this setting but
since we're all here uh in an open meeting um the I
M. M. Is also present, ERCOT is also present. I would
like to have us uh have a conversation about our policy
consistent with changes that have been made as a part
of our phase one implementation which was certainly
the object of discussion yesterday at the legislature
But uh I think we need to just try to keep talking
about this so we can try to smooth out and harmonize
the policies and collaborate with ERCOT because I know
they're thinking through this but offer them questions
to have answered on our part. Um so that we get a
good fix on how the individual policies are interacting
with each other. So if Kerry um could you approach
and then Canon,
Don't worry cannon, I'm not gonna expect anything of
you
sure.
Um but having MS Bevins uh the independent ERCOT monitor
here, I would like to have carry you lay out the the
policy framework that we have um on on track and their
individual tracks and how they are interacting with
each other in terms of rook versus O. R. D. C versus
our ancillary service procurement and what phenomenon
you are monitoring and I know you've done this before
So at a high level that'll set the table for us to
be able to discuss this on a more granular basis for
cannons. Both consideration to take back to senior
staff at ERCOT Um, and, and for our continued deliberation
could you lay that out for us? Certainly. That's fine
for the record. Carrie Bivens with atomic economics
or cut I mm. So I'll start with discussing the, you
know, what are broadly considered or called the conservative
operations. Um, I will note three things. One is that
ERCOT is procuring additional ancillary services in
the day ahead ERCOT Um, MW. Now that is all the services
minus the regulation down so all the upward services
and on days in which they see there's going to be high
forecast uncertainty or or or high uncertainty in the
forecast, they procure an additional 1000 on top of
that. Another thing is they are bringing on more generation
earlier in the, in the timeline. So rather than kind
of waiting until the last minute we're seeing more
rocks that are being uh reliability unit commitment
decisions that are being made earlier in the day
that is to not leave units on the side long lead time
Previously the, You know, if you have a six hour start
you typically wait until about six hours ahead of when
you need them to bring on that unit and instead we're
seeing, you know 12 hours or something like that depending
on the day and um another thing that is occurring is
more conservative forecasting so rather than choosing
um forecasts that are uh predicted to be the most accurate
um picking the ones that are most conservative so you
know they have the highest load or the lowest wind
um just in the, in the case of that comes to fruition
like it did two weeks ago today I think. Absolutely
So these factors combined and then with that 6500 and
7500 additional reserves, they are looking in that
target to determine whether or not they need to bring
on any of those resources through the reliability unit
commitment. They're using that 6500 and 7500 megawatt
target as a determination based on the load forecast
Of what the reserves are going to be and whether or
not they need to bring on additional units. Now I do
want to note that that does not include the non controllable
load resources that provide responsive reserve service
and so there is a disconnect between the 6500 that
are being procured day ahead and then the number target
that are cut is using for the reliability unit commitments
Um so I think those and and and uh added with the
forecast uncertainty. In addition there is a incentive
issue that we have identified and have filed a protocol
revision request to correct um I think are the factors
that are leading towards the more reliably unit commitments
that we've seen, you say the so non controllable load
and Rs is not being counted towards the In the sum
that gets to 60 500. What is just, I'm a picture book
God help me paint the picture. So even though we would
have, I'm asking, I'm making sure I got this straight
we would Would actually have 60 500 megawatts in reserve
between all of the ancillary services. The formula
used to calculate the reserves on whether or not we
need to rock would only show 5000 because that non
controllable loads, not part of that formula correct
And so thus we ERCOT would say, Hey, we're supposed
to have 6500 but we only have 5000. We need to rock
units. Yes. And you know, it doesn't happen every day
because sometimes self commitment fills that void.
But if those things were in alignment there on the
days it's not working. So it's not that we are seeing
those additional. I'm making feel free to clarify.
I'm just making sure yes and ERCOT can feel free to
clarify. I'm the only addition I would make is the
I don't take issue with anything Kerry said um the
reason why the uh loads are treated the way they are
is that they're deployed last in the order. Uh so it's
it's any a if you were to count those reserves, the
probability of going into E. A is higher. Having said
that there is an NPR are out 939 I believe it is
That lets us stratify that load um kind of like what
we did with the Non-spin load in terms of deployment
So that would be an option to slightly deviate from
that accounting. Um So that this is something we have
been looking at, that that 11 issue that she's raised
and that also sounds like somewhat similar to the changes
we made to er s which was only, it was only accessible
in the E. A. The protocols were changed to allow her
to deploy that. I think it's M. C. L. But we don't
have we're gonna use that resource before we get to
crisis. Exactly. That's so we are we're trying to kind
of mirror some of those other what I guess I would
describe as best practices given the feedback from
the commission. Um but I think as miss Bivens described
it today that she's very accurate in terms of. Okay
so it sounds like there's if we want to
humor me if you will, nothing is set in stone. That's
why I want to have this conversation there too. If
we want us work to resolve this, there are two potential
tracks for both tracks need to be addressed the deployment
question like we dealt with with the non controllable
load and Non-spin
and then also the accessibility of the resource no
longer restricted to. E a essentially I would I mean
that I agree with you first of all those are are both
issues to be addressed. I think that is a small subset
of the continuum that was described so another would
be uh and and the commission has teed this issue up
with reexamining ball and so forth. But the commitment
decision, the self commitment decision by resources
needs to happen and and be demonstrated to us so that
we don't feel the obligation to ruck. So there are
some outstanding ERCOT design considerations um around
Vaulx in particular that could impact that uh decision
making process.
Okay, so that's what I'm at, I think what I'm hearing
you say is the more any further adjustments that the
adjustments to steepening the curve by changed by raising
ball and separating it from age cap Could further enhance
the market-based incentives to bring those generators
on sooner rather than later. Exactly you said it much
better than I did. Thank you. It could have other effects
as well. So specifically around the rocks that were
experienced on 24 February. We saw the pricing outcomes
where because if there is a deep number of rocks that
are committed then um the O. R. D. C adder is significant
and can lead to prices. High prices that may may not
necessarily reflect the underlying operational uncertainty
and so I think there's some caution there is that um
we want to see high prices when there is, uh, potential
or expectation of scarcity and not necessarily on a
non scarce state in an effort to manage the scale of
the rucks and again, hitting that conservative posture
And I, by the way, I would affirm and applaud the conservative
posture. I think we've all been in agreement since
Uri doctrinally, that is what this commission has aired
on the side of caution toward, um, is how the operator
accounts for the load In the Rrs. And again, if, if
that is an average of 1500 MW couldn't, and, and if
you're granted, if you grant yourself the discretion
to use that outside of the EEA conditions while not
distorting the ERCOT at, you know, 3000 because I'm
sure the generators are one of the highly interested
and when those, those units will come in. Uh, yeah
absolutely, absolutely. So, um, as a, as a point of
discretion for the operator, if you could account for
those load resources in your 6500, that would, uh,
suppress the need theoretically to rock so much, is
that accurate? Um, I think, and you don't have to give
me an answer right now. Okay. I would just urge you
to go back and think about that. I think that's my
best answer that is going to go back and check. So
I just want to make sure I peel back all these layers
Um, so Kerry, um, you mentioned the controllable loads
not being included. And I think your interest is, you
know, balancing out the rocking and from your perspective
and, and cannon, there's an NPR, our existing NPR are
that would allow ERCOT to use those um, loader resources
outside of emergency conditions, It's about 1500 megawatts
It's a sizable chunk of megawatts. And so if ERCOT
gets this NPR through and now has the ability to use
these load resources outside of emergency conditions
then the total amount of a s that ERCOT carried would
increase and, and, and, and so that additional level
of reserves would um, as, as commissioner Mcadam said
would not um, would would mitigate the need for rock
right? Is that the number that you're buying would
be more in alignment with what ERCOT is wanting to
see in real time. And so if you, um, you'll have fewer
need to have that out of ERCOT action, not saying it's
going to go away completely. Just, I don't, I don't
want to um, to state that, but it is a factor in
the rocks. Yes. So it's one factor, right? I think
there's a variety of factors that are at interplay
with each other. One of them is also, and I'm not disagreeing
with the use of conservative forecast, but I think
that the use of conservative forecasts might have led
potentially. And I'll let you explain um, to the pricing
event that you decided to, with respect to the conservative
forecast that, that um, you know, some units didn't
come online because they perhaps didn't believe the
conservative forecast. So then you have less reserves
on the system. So rock capacities not including the
O R D C. So the RdC detected scarcity because there
was less self commitment and so RdC kicks in but ERCOT
has fewer reserves. So they had a ruck and so there's
there's an interplay there, a few factors that are
leading to the rocking. And so my point is just to
kind of pull back the layers so that we can kind of
look at them, you know, separate apart. But ultimately
to your point about the O. R. D. C. Having just modified
the O R D C effective january 1st. You know, I think
there's, you know, we've got to also be cognizant about
that too. Right? Because we've sent one message and
we've got to let it play out um, and see where we
land on that issue. But um, I mean the whole point
of the RdC changes that we made was to encourage operational
operational reliability so that we have fewer rocks
Well, we, we get reliability without rocking through
RdC, your forecast comments is good and carry, you
did a nice job laying out the difference between the
early february event and the late february event. The
conservative forecast in early february were exactly
that conservative and we had the conservative operations
had more resources than we need needed at that particular
operating day and really kind of kept prices down and
you know, we all heard about that. Um but on the late
february event the conservative forecast was not accurate
but not conservative enough and we had 900 MW of wind
out of 35,000 installed and higher load because it
was colder than expected and
it was, we were in scarcity and we needed we needed
those resources.
But I think, I think what you're saying is that we
would have rather have gotten them through, oh Rdc
adder at 100 or 500 rather than and not having to rock
rather than an even higher rd Seattle when we had already
rocked that, you know what we're aiming for. Right
I mean the whole, we need to let the O. R. D
C function under the intended purpose of, you know
bringing on the reserves earlier with a stronger price
signal earlier. Right? So that's why we raised the
M. C. L. From 2000 to 3000 And mitigated the consumer
impacts by lowering the price cap from 9000 to 5000
And so what we're trying to do is incent operational
reliability, bringing on the reserves on earlier with
a strong stronger price signal earlier and and um so
we're kind of in this interplay of, you know, conservative
operations posture with, with ERCOT reforms and that
um you know, we put in place to, to to improve operational
reliability and so we just needed to continue to explore
what the right balance is. I think between the two
Yes, you know, Um for example on that day on the 24th
I think the minimum physical responsive capability
was 30,700 MW and the highest price was $4,000. And
so I think that was an example of um you know, and
there's factors with that because of the rock and everything
like that. But is that you know, these are the questions
that will continue to ask ourselves as we have these
types of events. Is that the rice processing outcome
at that level of reliability and and as commissioner
Mike Adams said and I know you've reached chairman
you know the rocking tool is a very important tool
that ERCOT has a disposal um but we have to balance
it out and make sure that it's imbalanced with every
other ERCOT reform and putting in place and just kind
of continue to analyze how it's inter playing with
with the R. D. C. And other measures that that's kind
of where I'm coming from on this issue?
We'll put jimmy,
is there, can I just ask this question, I mean is there
any responsibility on the load side here, you know
that they're not actively or more active involved in
the day ahead ERCOT on situations like this or is that
am I off based on that? It seems like they could have
solved some of this problem as well uh, in the later
february event. Um, but I'm, I'm just asking the question
I guess the best way I would try and answer this is
um, that first of all at a high level the load is
pursuing the incentives that are there before it, before
them, but it's kind of comparing as, as the chairman
did that um, early february event versus the late february
event and load doesn't necessarily know any better
than in anyone else how it is exactly going to play
out. So we could b b long um more wind shows up
the temperature is a little bit warmer than than expected
or you could have the second scenario where, you know
um, the intermittent production is, is very low and
it's colder than expected. So the load serving entities
entities try and manage that as, as best they can,
but um, within the, you know, reward penalty structure
that exists, there are ways to that you are considering
in order to, you know, make them rethink that calculation
but they're responding in my opinion logically to the
set of information that's out there, I don't know,
carrie, if you have, and I just, I say that in the
sense that if you get stuck with $4000 real time price
you may think differently the second time this um scenario
comes along, which is, we need to be in the day ahead
ERCOT to secure our prices much lower and hopefully
you won't get stuck with the, with the higher prices
in the real time ERCOT and feel that some of it may
be self correcting hopefully. Um, and that, you know
we need to, as we've modified O R D C, we're making
these changes. We are not gonna see the markets work
exactly the way we want all the time and we have to
let them work as markets. Um, both generation and load
have a responsibility here for their, for their customers
And I just hope that we, we continue to let these things
we need to have these discussions, but we continue
perhaps to do a back cast analysis to figure out. So
what would have been the best thing that day and you
know, or um, we just, we need to keep having that discussion
It's not all a generator issue, it's somewhat a load
issue. And I think that we need to have, you know,
the discussion. The other thing that I would say on
this and I, I've tried to say this quite frequently
we do um, in these events. Talk about um, the times
when the renewables um, go offline when, when they
are, when they do not meet um, the projected or forecasted
amounts for me, an underlying part of that also is
the number of thermal units that are um, offline in
an unplanned outage. So how many have been forced out
And that is, You know, many times over this last fall
it has been 9000 MW a day also. Um, and that has
a detrimental effect on the ERCOT and reliability and
is a, a critical point that I think we need to continue
to look at. I know you're, I've asked ERCOT and y'all
are working on, um, fixing the dropdown menu on, on
outage reasons. Um, we still have lots of unknowns
but um, I think that, um, you know, we need to encourage
um, you know, those generators, it's in their financial
incentive to be available not to be in, in Yeah, we're
hoping so anyway, I just, um, you know, I think that
we need to talk about wind and, and other thermal outages
kind of in the same sentence most of the time because
they both have an interplay on the day ahead and real
time ERCOT. Uh, you know, from my perspective, that's
exactly right. Our job here is risk management, risk
management for the consumer, for the system, the system
then consumer. Um, and, and that's what this dialogue
is completely about on all of these individual components
that we have brought on very quickly. And I think the
legislature was happy with that yesterday. I mean that
was the takeaway. It's like we're, we're doing a good
job and we're calming the public as a result of that
good job and that is foundational to our mission. So
we have to look at it holistically, but uh, these,
these events are very, um, they're teaching us a master's
class on human nature and how these individual segments
are responding because as Kerry has continually alluded
to loads, responded to the miss in uh, during winter
storm landing With the overshoot of the forecast and
they didn't participate in the day ahead to the degree
um, during the 23rd and 24th Cold Snap. And and thus
we were rocking and renewables. We're not playing all
of this was feeding into a, which is not of of events
that force prices sky high um, for a four hour duration
So uh, yeah, ERCOT got a lot on his plate. What what
I do want to to know as a commissioner is, what amount
of discretion can we allow for for the grid operator
to, to harness these forces uh, for the ruck, which
is absolutely necessary um, as a construct. But also
these new tools that are coming into play that are
extremely valuable um, and to make all this sync up
Uh, so I think we're all saying the same thing in another
important factor is the forecasting. The forecasting
is not only important for reliability planning, but
it also has a real, real ERCOT impact to pricing and
ultimately investment. So, you know, continuing to
refine how, you know, I think ERCOT misuse of conservative
forecasting has benefits, but you know, it's, it's
forecasting drives a lot of ERCOT behavior and prices
So um ERCOT needs to continue to um refine how really
analyze how the forecasting is impacting behavior because
there's two drastically different responses from winter
storm landing to the week of the pricing event. Right
And and forecasting is just one factor but it was an
important factor and so I just want to leave that on
the table and you you made a very good point earlier
that a lot of new things are happening very quickly
and it's important to let the ERCOT and the ERCOT participants
adapt to those changes. We're what 60 days into the
new CDC um and like Kerry pointed out there's ERCOT
potential for learning one thing happened, we've had
two events really write like a sample size of two.
So we want to we want to allow ERCOT participants to
continue to adapt their business model and actions
and they have forecast to there's nothing written in
stone sign that I've got to accept ERCOT forecast but
reliability is paramount as Commissioner Matt Mcadams
said and we'll certainly continue that I think as
clarifying a path forward in terms of questions to
be asked. One thing I'd like to very much here from
or ask you all to dig in on is the um the
load the demand response locked up in the ea we address
that with E. R. S and would be very interested to see
what a similar approach both on deployment, reconciling
deployment like we did with non controllable load and
Non-spin and also Having access to that those 1500
MW before we get to emergency we're paying for the
resource I think just like us we want to be able to
utilize that resource before the crisis, not after
the crisis. Um so I would love to see
hear your thoughts on that and more detail on what
that might look like. Not something to think about
Absolutely, absolutely. Does that make sense for you
all?
Alright, any other thoughts or comments? Thank you
for thank you all for laying that out.
Alright Commissioner Cobos, I know you have requested
an update from another member of the team. Yes um thank
you chairman Lake. So I um I requested that ERCOT have
be here today to go over their survey results that
they filed. I think we would all benefit from getting
a little bit more information on what the numbers really
mean. As I know staff maybe looking to issue out questions
in the future to help us with the policy decisions
that we still need to make to provide feedback to ERCOT
on their RFP that they'll be issuing out in august
for the firm fuel product but as we look to um continue
to think about sizing the amount of firm fuel product
that we will procure ultimately for this first tranche
in the first RFP I think getting a little bit more
color on the figures that ERCOT submitted in their
survey results I think would benefit us all. And and
Jeff I'll let you just walk through the three different
buckets in the valley. Sure, Good morning. Commissioners
Jeff billow with ERCOT So in the filing we submitted
we separated the responses, we got back from resource
entities into three buckets. The first bucket is the
resources that currently have dual dual fuel capability
and can switch over to the fuel oil. Uh and our operational
ah I think there was a question about whether the tanks
are full and I would say that uh we don't have real
time information about if the tanks are full, but they
have the ability to fill the tanks. And I think most
if not all of them had full tanks at one point this
winter, a lot of them have run this winter. So I don't
know today if if they if they refilled all the way
back but but they do have that capability. So, so that's
resources that do have that capability. And if you
look at the bar chart that that we included, the way
to look at that is If you had a requirement that the
resources needed to be able to run for at least 72
hours, Then we would have 4400 megawatts of capacity
that could meet that requirement. However, if the requirement
were 96 hours, we would have 3900 megawatts of capacity
that could meet that requirement. Mhm. So that's the
first bucket. The second bucket uh is resources that
can Yeah, sure picks up. Um So just for for edification
for my fellow commissioner. So on this bar chart you
note about 500 megawatts of that 4,404,441 megawatts
About 500 MW of that are blackstar units? That's correct
So those are, so, you know, there were some questions
about if we have this firm fuel service uh from fuel
supply services that going to take away from the units
that are currently providing Black Start service. Uh
So we we we separated out the amount of megawatts that
are currently uh that that currently have a Black Start
service contract. Okay. Did you see have that information
So in order not to cannibalize the black start program
potentially as we continue to look at this this policy
issue, If you subtract the 500 out, you're looking
at more like 30, this this first bucket, Right? Yeah
And I think it's 400 something megawatts. So it's it's
roughly about 4000 that you'd have. And and just just
a high level the black star system has other requirements
other than on site fuel storage, correct? That that
feed into their bids into that that's correct their
ability to bid into that program.
And and do those. Um I asked this, I've been to an
nRG plant, I think I'm getting into black Start here
more than the firm fuel piece, but At one of their
plants, they're black start unit was 13 MW. So if they
have firm fuel for 13 MW, obviously it's not the important
well, that's half the important piece. The other important
pieces that Um, the next unit in that black star plan
is 450 MW Um, is, are we, am I mixing things already
Uh, that, I mean we want farm fuel for the 450 MW
Also Not just the 13 MW black store program or the
firm fuel, so that, I mean, that's why I'm mixing them
So from Black Start already has that requirement. Um
you know, I think they are actually kind of combined
but um, because these plants are going to have firm
fuel, I mean, there are plants that are, will have
firm fuel storage on their site that may also be in
the Black Start plan, um, that are needed, you know
if there was a catastrophic outage. But anyway, so
I'm just thinking about how we would, you know, at
least understand the interplay between those two. Right
And for clarification today, there's not a requirement
for the Black Start units to have that, but there is
an NPR are 11 10 that is going through the process
the stakeholder process that would add that requirement
in. But as of right now, it's just for the Black Start
units, it's, it's not for the next next Start units
wait, the NPR are, is just for firm on site. Fuel for
the Black Star unit. That's not the second unit in
that process may be helpful to provide some clarification
on this Black Start or help me understand this question
There's a Black Start requirement or eligibility relate
to a specific piece of infrastructure or is it a certain
number of megawatts out of a larger asset?
So it's, I think it's closer to the first one. It's
uh, it is a specific unit. However, there are plants
that qualify that they can Black start any of a number
of units at the plant site. So, so it is for one
of those units to be able to black start in, in uh
in the situation that we need them to. So I think it
could be because they're modular right? Like inside
the fence, you got 100 megawatt capability somewhere
in there. You've got to get 15 megawatts or 13 megawatts
for the Black Start. Um, and so it could directly be
pieced together like antlers or some segment of your
production is black starts in segments from fuel. And
you could have the fuel infrastructure aggregated across
it.
Yeah, I would agree with that, in which case it's not
a question of, we're not worried about cannibalizing
it almost it would be an enhancement potentially to
their ability to qualify for a more lucrative service
which is Black Star. So assuming they have the, the
fuel tank capability then? I would agree with that
We're not going to pay for the 15 megawatts twice,
but you get paid for the 15 megawatts for Black Start
and then The next 85. But then you go and fill those
tanks up to a higher level. Right? And you're going
to match it to what, what you're being paid for. Okay
good. Yes. Okay. That's very good. Good discussion
on on that issue because I was trying to make sure
that we separated out appropriately as we look to really
try to understand how many megawatts are available
in this first track, this first bucket. And so that's
very helpful. Um, To understand. So as we're looking
at those 500 MW that are in Black Start potentially
it sounds like we might be able to squeeze some of
those out for firm fuel. Is that fair? Like they could
also participate in assuming they had the tank capacity
then? I think that's fair. Okay. Okay. Is there a way
to sort of study that that's 500 megawatts and see
what, what can be pulled out for firm fuel and how
many megawatts, how many megawatts can be pulled out
from fuel and how many could be left for Black Start
Is that something that's possible? We probably need
to wait until the NPR goes through to clarify
fuel requirements for Black Start and then take a look
at. Right. Right. Yeah. And it would be in the addition
of how many hours worth of fuel, you know, for black
star plus how, how many hours for firm fuel, you know
we could do that math
megawatts. But I just want to make sure that, you know
as we look to size, that we just have all the details
in there. But okay. And I want to make sure that so
a unit that is in firm fuel can also be in Black
Start. It's just the payment is, they're not going
to get paid for both for that. I don't think we want
to do that. Yeah, that's what, that's what a subset
of that unit will be dedicated and paid for under the
black star. Sometimes sometimes they're, they're dedicated
units for Black Start at different points. So, um,
I just want to make sure that both sides are covered
but that were not double paying, but, but on the whole
for our purposes, we're looking at 4400 megawatts existing
existing. Uh, That could go into either program 50%
of your, if you have the fuel capability, 50% of your
generator could go to the black started 40%. The other
60% could go to firm fuel. That's economics really
depending on what the pricing is a business decision
But the key point is, we, we don't want to pay for
we don't want double pay for the same megawatts, but
but we're buying reserves and that's what we want to
and part of as we scale this part of it is also
to get more representative. So once we get to 4400
that'll that'll be one Price Point and, the you know
4400 plus one the next megawatts, a new firm fuel that
will be more expensive. But if we are, the sizing question
is an open question. But if we want to eventually scale
it to just by way of example, 10,000 megawatts of firm
fuel, Alright, We're gonna we're gonna pay for the
1st 4400. We know we've got that Once you get to 5000
that's gonna get more expensive because it's a new
build within the year after that you get a six out
you know, it'll it'll the price will go down as that
supply comes in
established and it's actually constructed. Yes. And
and one thing we've got to keep in mind at least some
of the feedback I got from ERCOT maybe not used specifically
Jeff, but some feedback I got was these are the megawatts
um that we're getting based on the survey feedback
from the generation resource owners. However, not all
of these generation resource owners will bid into the
program necessarily. Um, we can go out for it, but
we might not, you know, they may choose not to participate
Okay.
So the the second bucket are resources that at some
point in time had some infrastructure in place. I think
all of them still have fuel tanks on site but that
uh that that infrastructure has gone into some state
of disrepair. Uh And I apologize I do not need to make
a correction on the numbers I sent you. Uh We realized
yesterday we had a type of where it says that there
are 18 resources at 11 plant sites. That should be
18 resources at six plant sites. So I apologize. Well
we'll get that corrected in the filing but all the
other numbers are are accurate. I would just sort of
informally characterize the responses that we got back
as I think of the six plant sites. I think one of
the plant sites was somewhat optimistic that they could
get their infrastructure uh going again. I think the
other five, I would say we're extremely pessimistic
about their ability to get there infrastructure back
up again. So I I would say I would be hesitant to
count on any of those, especially for this coming winter
And then the the third bucket is the the the resources
that have um uh stored natural gas. Uh And and there
were really just to storage facilities for for two
Q. S. C. S. Uh The first I'll say QsC one, they
own the storage facility and they own the pipeline
from the storage facility to their plant sites. They
have to two different plant sites that can draw from
that uh that storage facility, it's uh such that they
cannot run both of those plants sites at full output
from that storage facility at the same time. Uh They
could run some combination of what one at full want
one less or zero or that they could run both a lower
number for the purposes of the numbers that we gave
you, we assume that the larger plant site was running
at full and the other plant site was off about how
many megawatts. So I think that was roughly 550 MW
for that one. So 550 MW for where a generation resource
owner um owns and operates the transmission pipeline
to the offsite natural gas facility, correct? And they
own the the storage facility as well. They own every
aspect of the supply chain, with the exception of the
production. That's my understanding. And this is why
I asked that question because I thought somewhere along
this evaluation, I suspected there was a very finite
small um subset in our ERCOT today where a generation
resource owner owned and controlled their pipeline
to their own natural gas facility. That's offside.
Right. Yeah. So that that was the only one uh from
the survey and the R. F. I. S. That we sent, that
was the only one that responded that controlled everything
Uh The other what I'll call qsc to uh they have a
contract for the storage facility, They own the pipeline
they do not own the storage facility uh and and they
are able to run part of their plant. Uh It's it's a
large plant site with many units. They're able to run
part of that from that storage facility that they would
not be able to run all of the plant from that storage
facility. You have to say that again? They own the
pipeline, they do not own the storage facility, they
are in contract for the storage. That's correct. Do
they own 100% of the pipeline capacity from the storage
facility to their plant or they, is it a header system
that goes, I mean, is it a header system that goes
from the storage facility to the plant or is it bypassing
the plant carrying additional gas to other customers
Um I mean when we get into these issues, there are
nuances here that are are that we have to be careful
that we we don't want to eliminate the possibility
but we do need to have this good understanding of what
the attributes actually are and what are the, what's
the contracted right of withdrawal from the facility
at what rate? And that's something that, yeah, as,
as with all this, the devil's in the details and in
terms like that are incredibly important. And so I
know we've, we've asked it before, but again, please
I think we all want the stakeholders to include suggestions
on how to address that. What are the most important
terms and conditions, covenants, etcetera, in these
contracts for transport, withdrawal delivery, etcetera
So I don't know, we don't know what the answer is yet
but
if we're, if we're going to, I mean texas has extraordinary
natural gas resources, we certainly just don't want
to thumb our nose at that. But if we're going to consider
it, those details are absolutely critical to ensure
that the farm really means for me. I think the one
other thing on that with, with the withdrawal capacity
um, I'm not a pro on, on the gas side of the
equation here, but it seems like you could have somebody
that would say, well we're part owner of a pipeline
and they own 1% or point oh, 1% of the pipeline Um
as a limited partner. And uh, the question would be
would that give you any capability to have any firm
reserve or you own the whole, the whole thing and you
sold 50% of it to the right. So I again, devil's in
the details to just try to understand that to make
sure that the endgame that there, there is a firm fuel
component to that um, is, is really,
yeah, understanding the pipeline configuration, I guess
what you're saying as well. Okay with that being said
I mean, I believe that we should consider that I think
in different parts of the, especially in the gulf coast
with salt domes. It's just a massive resource that
we ought to evaluate closely and look at that for the
way that we might be able to ensure reliability for
that part of the ERCOT. Um It's not the same for every
region of the state but in that region it's something
that could be hugely valuable to consumers.
Thank you, Jeff. I don't have any more questions. I
don't have anything else to do. Alright. Any other
questions? Thank you, appreciate you being here.
You don't have anything on items 16 Which will take
us to item 19. (item:19) Would you like that out for us? Mr
generic
item 19. Stock at 51091 is the complaint of members
of the Rio Ancho homeowners Association and others
against aqua texas
before you as a proposal for decision.
Thank you sir. Uh This docket presents a somewhat unique
issue to be addressed that neither this commission
or t ce que has addressed in the past related to water
use um and given the complexities and the unprecedented
nature of this, this docket, my my first instinct is
to take a little more time to make sure we can have
a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of all elements
of the docket. So I'd propose tabling it for today
but I'm happy to hear their thoughts or other considerations
I agree with you in in that this case could have real
Um Yeah, there's there's a lot of gravity associated
with the decision associated with this case. Um I think
it plays into long term policy considerations on the
part of the commission. So I I think uh any type of
consideration on the part of staff stakeholders um
to to enshrine a doctrine that could have long lasting
precedent. Um we should take care in considering all
options, so I appreciate the thinking on this. Mr Chairman
I would appreciate the extra time. I think it's it's
um well worth taking a deeper dive. Right, I'm supportive
of that. All right, we'll table this item for consideration
at a future commission meeting 21, consented, we don't
have anything on 22 through 28 Which will bring us
to our update from our executive director. And item
29.
(item:29) Thank you. Mr Chairman Commissioners. Um Two items
of note this morning, the first bit of unfortunate
news, as you are aware, Rachel robles, our Director
of Legal division um has tendered her resignation her
last day is next week. I would just want to take this
opportunity to publicly thank her for her work and
service here. She accepted that position at a time
of great need in that division and um did an amazing
job and and we will definitely miss her around the
office and the the great work that she did here absolutely
hate to see her go and Like everybody in that division
the last 12 months have been tumultuous to say the
least. We're grateful to have had her leadership through
that period and grateful for the team that she led
and all the all the work and challenges they've addressed
and overcome. Mr Rogers. I would also like to say when
we were all um sort of para dropped into this commission
almost a year ago. It was of great comfort to me to
see the people who held the leadership positions at
the agency, but also the rank and file. Although those
cubicles were quite empty for some time given the constraints
of the pandemic. But the leadership um Rachel being
uh, top among them was was a great comfort at a very
trying time for for us rookie commissioners and I appreciated
her work. I want to thank Rachel for her service and
leadership as well. I had the pleasure of working with
her when I was public council um at open prior to joining
the commissioners Commissioner. Um and due to the black
curtain, unfortunately, I didn't get to see her as
much as I would like to have seen her in this role
But she is a has been a great asset to the commission
and um I want to thank her for her service and leadership
So, um I'm sorry, I was just gonna say all service
to the, to the state and to the people of the state
is is admirable and we just appreciate all of the efforts
all of the sacrifices that she made uh for all of us
Absolutely. And as you know, I'm, I'm not one to bring
you some bad news without a little bit of good news
from time to time. Uh an update on some construction
unfortunately not construction of your office commissioner
guilty. Um but one of particular note perhaps given
the non verbal communication that I've had during this
meeting with our court reporter, our new Diess is actually
completed that will accommodate Up to five Commissioners
And we'll make it easier for you all to speak to one
another without having to pull back from your microphones
to turn your head. So that has been constructed and
is planned to be delivered on the 23rd of this month
So congratulations to all. I don't know what I'll do
without having to do this.
That does delivery include installation thomas. Yes
And I believe if not happy to see, you know, if you're
willing to help out with your tools, happy to have
that. And I do believe I'll check with Cindy, I do
believe it is firm delivery. Our previous conversations
I don't know but I believe it is firm delivery so no
supply chain issues. I don't believe so. I think our
contract is for firm delivery as with all new reforms
This commission is undertaken, firm means firm and
lack of performance of any type of resource will be
met with stiff penalties
I believe so. And and Mr chairman noted And I look
forward to my future job performance evaluation. I
do too. Alright. Any other questions for the executive
director?
All right, thank you for the update. We'll miss you
Rachel. Alright. Having convened in a duly notice,
open meeting, the commission will now at 11 a.m. On
March 10, to hold a closed session, pursuant to chapter
five of 1 of the texas government code, Section 551.71551
point 074 and 551.76. We'll be back in a bit. Sorry
is hereby concluded at 11:20 a.m. On March 10th 1 22
and the commission will now resume its public meeting
No action will be taken by the commission regarding
matters discussed in the closed session, so having
no further business. This meeting of the Public utility
commission is hereby adjourned. Happy spring break
everybody.