(tapping gavel thrice)
-: Good morning.
This meeting with 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 June 30th, 2022.
For the record, my name is Peter Lake
and with me today, are Will MCAdams,
Lori Cobos and Jimmy Gloftfelty.
Mr. Jenay, could you please walk us through
the consent items on today's agenda?
-: Good morning Commission.
By individual ballot,
the following items were placed on your Consent Agenda.
Two, three, four, six. nine, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 27.
-: Thank you, sir.
We have a motion to approve the items just
described by Mr. Jenay. -: So moved.
-: Second. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
None opposed, motion passes.
We will not be taking up item five today,
and that brings us to our formal agenda.
First item is public comment,
oral comments related to specific agenda items as always
will be heard when that item is taken up.
This segment is for general comments only.
When we do get to oral comments on specific agenda
items, stakeholders should not approach the table
unless oral argument has been granted,
or they have been invited by a Commissioner.
As always, speakers will be limited to three minutes each.
Mr. Jenay, do we have anyone from the public
signed up to speak? -: No, sir.
This morning, no one is signed up.
-: Thank you, sir.
In that case, public comment is now closed.
Next item on our agenda please, Mr. Jenay.
-: I believe it is item number seven, Docket 52707.
Petition of Sheryl Lynn Lane Dowell,
Trustee of the Dan Dowell Credit Trust to amend,
some water supply corporation's name I can't say.
convenience and necessity in Collin County
by expedited release.
Proposed order was filed on March 16th.
-: Thank you, sir.
Thoughts, comments on the docket, now Mr. Jenay.
-: I think this is straightforward.
I think my, from my perspective,
I think we reject a proposed order remanded back
to obtain additional information on who owns
the County Road 398 and determine whether the track of land
can be released through streamlined expedite release,
given the fact that the County Road severs
the track into two.
So there's a factual issue that we need to address
in order to be able to move forward with
considering this application.
-: Yeah, that makes sense to me.
-: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that.
And also as a further refinement who has title
to what's below County Road 398 as well.
So I'd support that.
-: I feel the same way, thanks.
-: All right, Commissioner Cobos sounds like
you have a motion.
-: Yes, I have a motion to reject the proposal order
to remand the case back to obtain additional information
on who owns County Road 398 and determine whether
the track of land can be released through the stream on
expedite a release requirements
under the Texas Water Code and Commission Rules.
-: Do we have a second. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Can we make sure that that motion does have what
Commissioner MCAdams said,
which is the land underneath the road?
-: Yes. -: Very formally.
-: As the issues evaluated for ownership of the County Road
to look at ownership, both I guess,
above and underneath the road.
-: Yes, I think that was the intent.
-: Second. -: Right.
-: Yes. -: Amended motion seconded.
All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
None opposed, motion passes.
Next item please, Mr. Jenay.
-: Item eight is Docket 52758 is petition of McAllen
public utility appealing wholesale water rates charged
by Hidalgo County Water Improvement, District No. 3.
Before you is an appeal of so order number four.
-: Thank you, sir.
Thoughts, comments.
-: Mr. Chairman look, the abatement requirement
under 16 T.A.C 24307, subsection D
has been subject to multiple court cases
since the Commission adopted the rule.
Without changes from its promulgation
by the Water Commission in the mid 1990s.
And now with the enactment
of the Water Code 12.013, subsection D.
It is unclear whether the 16 T.A.C 24307 requirement
to abate wholesale rate proceedings so that the parties
may bring the court action to determine if the appealed
rates are pursuant to the contract
is currently valid or necessary.
So I would propose moving to extend time to act
on the appeal of so order number four,
until the Commission can decide to act on the appeal.
Open ended so that once that's settled, we can readdress.
-: Well, makes sense is a,
an issue that needs to have some time spent on it.
-: Agreed. -: Agreed.
-: All right, consider that your motion?
-: That is my motion.
-: We have a second? -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed, motion passes.
Next item please, sir.
-: Item 10 is Docket 52892, the application of East Houston
Utilities for a Class D Rate Adjustment.
Proposed order was filed on March 29th.
-: Thank you, sir.
Thoughts, comments.
-: Hey, here's another one for me.
Another thought Mr. Chairman,
the PFD would dismiss East Houston's application for failure
to amend its application such that it is sufficient
after repeated determinations, that it was insufficient.
The only deficiency identified by the Commission staff
requested East Houston to submit proof that it is eligible
for one of the exemptions listed
under 16 T.A.C 24.29, subsection B.
However, that rule provision applies to the filing
of a statement of intent under the Water Code 13.1871
and 13.18715.
So it does not apply to the applications for a Class D
Utility rate adjustment under the Water Code 131872.
So with that, I'd kind of frame this in a motion to remand
the proceeding for additional processing based on
the Commission's determination that 16 T.A.C 24.29
subsection B, does not apply to an application
for a Class D rate adjustment filed
under the Water Code under 13.1872.
-: If you're referring to the 12 month consideration
and the difference between the adjustment and the case--
-: That's correct. -: I agree with that.
I don't have the numbers quite as well memorized as you do.
-: I was gonna say the exact same thing
that Commissioner MC Adam said.
-: I got it sir. -: Verbatim.
-: Verbatim number by numbers, statue citation as such.
-: I think I'm on the same page as I understand it.
I think with Commissioner McAdams,
we need to remand the PFD.
I'm sorry, reject the PFD and remand the case back
so that the case can be evaluated into the rate adjustment
requirements under the Water Code instead of the base rate.
-: Not the rate setting. -: Yeah, exactly.
-: Proceed. -: Because staff's position
on recommending the application because it's deficient
was based on the base rate case requirements
and the case needs to get remanded back
so that the appropriate standard of review
and requirements are applied for a rate adjustment
rather than base rate case is small water utility,
is clearly your rate adjustment.
So I think that's the appropriate action.
-: Agreed, do you have a motion for us?
-: I do.
So I would move to remand the proceeding for additional
processing based on the Commission's determination
that 16 T.A.C 24.29 subsection B
does not apply to an application for a Class D
rate adjustment filed under the Water Code
section 13.1872.
-: We have a second. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
None opposed, thank you, Commissioner McAdams.
Next item please, sir.
I don't think we have anything.
11 was consented 12.
I don't have anything until I think item 15.
Is that consistent with your account, Mr. Jenay?
-: Yes, sir.
Item 15 is Docket 51665.
Application of Southwestern Public Service Company
to change its fuel factors.
First announced Commissioner Cobos has recused herself
from this matter.
Proposed order was filed on June 10th.
-: Thank you, sir.
Thoughts, comments, bit of a tricky one.
-: I think we're just implementing something that we've
previously decided, we've approved the formula.
Now we're specifically putting this to the right structure.
And I think that eliminating that component of the fuel
factor that was dedicated to Winter Storm Uri
is not appropriate to get a real baseline
for what the fuel factor is.
So I would suggest that we approve this.
-: Well put.
-: So with that, Mr. Chairman, I agree in the concept,
I believe that first issue good course.
-: Yes. -: Without good course,
we have a situation where our utility
may materially under earn.
So I believe that under the proposed order,
the good course should be granted.
-: You agree. -: Okay.
-: As to the adoption of the proposed order.
So I believe the issue of supporting evidence
has not been satisfied.
So I believe that we should take no action on the proposed
order, but potentially remand this back.
So that SPS has the opportunity to provide supporting
evidence such as work papers so that we establish
the record on this.
-: I'm supportive of that.
-: Okay. -: Makes sense to me.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
It certainly the under recovery would be a staggering number
if we didn't grant that good course exception.
-: Right, all of that.
-: But we do need to see, like in,
as we've consistently asked in the number of proceedings,
we wanna see the math on the rest of it.
All right. -: Same to same.
So could I make a motion consistent with our conversation
from the Dias, Mr. Jenay.
-: Please. -: So moved.
-: Second. -: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
None opposed, motion passes.
Next item please, sir.
-: Item 16 is Docket 52455.
Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company
to amend its CCN for electric transmission line
in Ellis County.
A proposed order was filed on May 6th.
The LJ filed a correction memo on May 17th.
And I have a memo with proposed changes to the order.
-: This is another proceeding where we've asked
to see the homework and we've seen it.
I suppose, thoughts comments?
-: Well, first I'd like to thank the parties
for filing testimony to support their settlement agreement
in this case.
Based on my review of the testimony, I would move to,
from my perspective, I would approve the proposed order
that adopts settlement agreement regarding
agreed route number 152.
And my position, from my standpoint,
I believe the route from reliability standpoint
provides pretty much the same reliability
as Route 54.
It is a little bit more expensive, 2.3 million,
but I think when you look at the totality of the facts,
this line is needed.
This is about three to five mile line it's needed
to interconnect about 223 megawatts
of solar generation in ERCOT.
The production cost savings that we would get
from this new solar generation, the reliability benefits
that it would provide, I think would be helpful
and would be, I mean, I think it'd be fine to spend
a little bit more money to get
these generation facilities interconnected.
From reliability standpoint, the line is,
provides about the same reliability as the Route 54
that was provided for an Oncor's application.
Again, 2.3 million is not that much.
It's a diminimous amount.
And when you look at Oncor's entire rate base,
regardless of the route that's chosen for this line,
there will still be a 7.8 million cost
for the switch station.
And I think there are a variety of landowners are supportive
of this green route, the largest landowners,
and it's got a lot of community support, impact on community
values and environmental effects are positive.
And I think, we gotta get in a position where at some point,
we need to view settlements from the lens of all the facts
that we gotta take into consideration to approve a CCN.
But also we don't want to consistently be sending cases back
because if we send this case back,
we would require the parties to have a hearing or come back
with a settlement agreement.
I'm not just, I'm not sure we're gonna get anything better.
I think we just need to move forward and go ahead
and approve the settlement agreement with the agreed route
based on the rationale that I've provided.
-: Thank you.
Thoughts, comments.
-: I'm in agreement.
I was not here when you all discussed this,
the first meeting I was out sick, but I do believe
that we have definitely not an obligation,
but a opportunity when parties settle to take that
settlement and make it easy on them and on us.
And it, to me, we've had a few of these,
especially in transmission routing,
the settlements mean higher costs.
These are all estimates, quite frankly,
a $2 million higher cost.
I want all of our transmission costs to be real and low,
but this could be inflation on steel.
This could be a eminent domain proceeding if we reject this.
I mean, there are lots of other things that can make up
that difference if we don't adopt this.
And getting more and more people to settle these cases,
being willing to put our facilities on their land
is really important I think for the future transmission
development in Texas.
So I'm supportive of Commissioner Cobos.
-: Mr. Chairman, members.
I feel like we're getting backed
into a corner on reliability.
That that word is gonna be thrown out around
for quite some time in the Oncor system, because--
-: Forever. -: Yeah, well forever.
But right now with the thin lay of the land
in terms of resource adequacy, we're gonna be there.
So we're gonna need to build lines
and it's absolutely necessary.
Even once 1281 is implemented a transmission rule
on an economic benefit test is imposed.
Reliability will stay still weigh very heavily
in the Commission's considerations.
And we will see a lot of projects
that will fall within that methodology.
And so I worry that we are being pressed
from two directions.
One, settlement with stakeholders.
And I totally agree with trying to allow
all of the conditions to be considered,
which we are statutorily required to.
All of the allowances and considerations
for the property owners along proposed routes
to be considered.
But again, when costs and I see the point Commissioner Cobos
on the aggregate are not much to the entire transmission
cost of the Oncor system,
but it's still 2.5 million more
than the lowest cost route.
The reliability benefits are the same, correct.
I mean, that's what we found in the evidence.
54 follows existing right away.
And again, we are taking the settlement at phase value
because it is a settlement.
So everybody came to the table.
Everybody can come to the table on a 50 billion project
if they want to.
I mean, they don't care.
That's our job is to try to keep the lid on cost
imposed to the system.
And so, my view is this needs to be sent back
and reviewed on the merits.
That they have to go through the process to determine that.
And anyway, that's just my view, Mr. Chairman.
-: Well, and Commissioner MCAdams,
I certainly appreciate your perspective.
It's a constant balancing, right?
We've had other CCN cases that come,
they've been filed and we've looked at interconnection
of generation facilities and reliability,
and we gotta balance all these factors out.
And each case will have its own factual circumstances
for us to evaluate.
And this, in this case, we have our facts
and I understand where you're coming from in terms of,
you know every case may involve interconnection
of generation that could provide to reliability.
But as I look at the overall facts of this case,
that the size of the line, the need for the line,
the fact that if we remanded back and there's a hearing
or another settlement,
we have no guarantee that they're gonna come in
with a cheaper line.
-: That's true. -: We could ask for it,
but we may not.
And what it'll ultimately turn into is additional rate payer
costs because that's just more litigation that that'll ensue
as a result of just kind of sending it back
and vetting it out more.
Which I always supportive of trying to do our due diligence,
but at the same time, we gotta get to a place where
we get some transmission built in ERCOT
to address these types of circumstances.
I mean, ERCOT is not reviewing economic transmission
projects right now.
Because Senate bill 1281 is not implemented.
This is a prime example of what would be reviewed under
that transmission criteria.
Production, cost savings,
solar generation being integrated in.
And so we need to,
from my perspective,
given the facts and circumstances is case,
and I think that I would be comfortable moving forward
because I mean, we've gotta kind of get in the position
where, well, we don't wanna get back into the corner
with settlement agreements and they may be more high price.
We'll evaluate every, all the facts at that time.
And based on the facts here,
I just think that moving forward with approving
the settlement is probably more beneficial than continuing
to grind it out over $2.3 million.
Where the $2.3 million you can view as
being balanced out by the additional generations
being brought on the system.
-: Yeah, I think my experience is that when you are trying
to route a transmission line, it, first of all,
it's not easy.
You've got spaghetti maps, you've got lots of landowners,
you've got historical environmental,
all sorts of different factors
that you're trying to resolve.
And it's very hard and it's time consuming
and it's expensive.
So when we have parties come together and help us
with that process,
I think if there's a band of reasonableness around that cost
increase to me, it behooves us to take that opportunity
and benefit them.
And I think that's where I'm supportive
of Commissioner Cobos and think that we ought proof this.
-: Does the Commission, Commissioner MCAdams
there need to be difference in a economics benefit test,
say by in the circumstance of relieving existing congestion
without adding new generation, stand apart
from adding new generation here and now.
-: Well, all-- -: At this moment in time,
not study to the state. -: Exactly.
I don't know.
I'm not qualified to weigh the hypothetical Mr. Chairman.
I would say my view would probably change if this was
a peaker plant or something like that,
that we were gonna call upon, but on aggregate,
the solar facility will help the system
and we are grateful.
But given our near term needs,
some are just a lot more useful for liability than others.
And-- -: Well.
Yeah, I mean, but during the summer,
I don't think anybody can disagree that solar generation
provides very high level of reliability.
-: They're great in the summer, not much help in the winter.
-: But we gotta take it where we can.
-: Absolutely take it where we can.
-: Every season's important.
-: So again, that's not my reason for expressing concern.
It is a cost issue.
It's a big old dog leg, right.
I mean, that route took, and I'm just trying to figure out,
all right, what are we doing here on these settlements?
And maybe it's enough that I've just rattled the cage
and expressed concern, 'cause I think we're gonna see
more of these and because reliability isn't ever present,
pressure for all the systems right now.
-: Well, absolutely.
And as we look to implement Senate bill 1281 in our project,
that staff is open.
I mean, we're gonna be addressing
additional reliability criteria.
-: Correct. -: Any economic criteria,
and maybe by further refining those transmission planning
criteria is that will help us as we move forward
in evaluating the CCN applications with a tighter lens
and CCN applications and settlement agreements
with the tighter lens in the future.
-: Right.
-: Again, I would say that these are cost estimates.
We don't know what the end cost will be.
It could be more, and it could be less depending upon
a lot of factors.
Likely in this day and age, it's gonna be more
with commodity and labor prices high.
-: Sure. -: Financing costs high.
So it may be higher than the 2 million,
but the other line, Route 54 may be higher
than the initial proposed.
Amount as well. -: Yeah.
-: So I think we just, we don't know.
We have to go with this process
that's been laid out before us.
I think there's a band of reasonableness here where we ought
to go ahead and accept this settlement and go forward.
-: Well, certainly here, all the points,
that Commissioner MCAdams,
I'll help rattle the cage with you.
Our job is to provide reliability at a reasonable cost.
And certainly there benefits to doing things sooner
rather than later with settlement uncertainty
and commodity prices, construction availability.
And certainly here are all concede the points
that you've laid out.
That sooner, getting connected sooner rather than later
is always better.
And the only, and,
but we can't have uncontrolled costs
just because parties agree.
And I'd certainly say when we asked for folks to show
their homework and show the calculus
behind their thinking, what we saw here was not a lot.
Just because we kind of, don't sort of don't want it
to go this way is not very compelling in my mind.
But the only thing and to the cage rattling going forward,
I mean, costs are a key concern and there's a band,
but it's pretty tight.
And so going forward costs will always be a concern.
And I think that's something that is philosophically shared
amongst all of you.
And we will need to see good reason for route changes
and cost increases
that are part of any settlement like this.
The only thing that tips the scale for me
in this case is getting those 200 some on megawatts on.
-: As quickly as possible.
-: As quickly as we can in a four, six, nine month delay.
-: I hear you.
-: And if it means that they can be plugged in
for next summer, in the absence of 1281,
we're making an implementation that that's the only thing
that tips the scale to get this done sooner
rather than later.
Once we do get 1281 implemented and the rule making done,
I think that's a reset and cost and credible calculus
on why those costs are justified.
I think we'll always need to be a principle
that we look closely at.
-: Okay, I'll respect the will of the body and support it.
I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.
Timeliness of completion of the project is important.
And, but if these settlements keep coming up, I mean,
we're gonna see a trend and--
-: I'm there with you. -: Yeah.
-: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, let me take a second.
I spent a little bit of time looking at the transmission
construction reports that are required to be filed
with the Commission on existing lines.
I have found that many of them are incomplete.
The lines have been completed,
but the final registration of their costs have not.
And I've spoken to some utilities about this,
but it's my hope that they can go back
and redouble their efforts,
make sure those filings are up-to-date
so that we do have a good basis for looking at these
and seeing if they are over or under and have a good,
maybe that helps us set a band of reasonableness.
But without that, we really don't have a--
-: Guiding story. -: A guidance document.
So it would be great for them to look at those.
I've talked to staff about it and hopefully this will send
the message to make sure that if you haven't
put in your final construction costs work to do so.
-: Great point Commissioner Gloftfelty.
And I think having those updated cost estimates where,
in those reports would be helpful because that would capture
current data on the costs that the PDUs are experiencing,
taking into considerate supply chain issues, inflation,
and those factors that would impact cost.
So I think it's important as we look,
as we create a band in the future as to evaluate BCC
and application settlement agreements that we take those
very important real factors into consideration.
-: Yeah, very good point.
And I trust you'll stay on top of it.
-: Yes, sir.
-: Please bring your, as we go through these.
Please do at periodic points,
come back in these meetings and provide us updates
on that initiative. -: Absolutely.
-: Thank you.
That being said, do we have a motion?
-: I would. -: I will.
One thing I think we do need to, if we are gonna approve,
do we...
-: Little bit of cleanup I think.
-: Little cleanup on a finding of fact.
-: Yes.
So if we're approving the proposed order,
we need to delete finding a fact 148
and that finding of fact addresses Oncor's letter agreement
with staff in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,
and it provides some verbiage regarding that letter.
And I don't think it's necessary.
There's no reason for the Commission to speak
to the appropriateness of a letter agreement
with a non-party.
So I don't think we can remove that as being unnecessary
in the order and also add a new finding of fact
that reflects that the party submitted additional evidence
to support the party settlement agreement consistent
with the Commission's direction at the May 26th open meeting
and remand order.
And adopt change is proposed by Commission council's memo.
-: That's a motion.
-: Yes. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed, motion passes.
Thank y'all, good discussion.
Good cage rattle. -: We'll see.
-: Well, we're gonna stay on top of that.
Next item please, sir.
-: Item 20 is Docket 52992.
Petition to revoke RES Nation, LLC's Broker Registration
Before you is a proposed default order filed on March 14th.
-: Thoughts, comments.
-: I think-- -: Oh yeah.
-: I would propose moving forward with approving the ALJ's
proposed default order and revoking resignations,
Broker Registration and failure to amend their registration
and failure to respond to client complaints.
-: Agreement. -: Me too.
-: Is there a motion? -: Yes.
-: And I would second.
-: Motion to second.
All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
None opposed.
Next to item, please, sir.
-: Item 21 is Docket 53377.
Complaint of Engie Energy Marketing
and Viridity Energy Solutions against Hrncir.
before you is appeal of order number five,
filed on March 18th.
-: Another tricky one.
Thoughts, comments.
More questions about details.
I certainly think there's what we've got in House leaves
something to be desired in terms of the,
whether this is administratively complete.
The...
-: Yeah, I would agree.
I mean, I think this is one of those,
when you dig to the filing, you have to listen to staff
on some of these things that they're the ones who can decide
whether they're administratively complete or not.
And it seems to me that there are some areas
where they are not complete and staff has highlighted those.
And it would seem to me that it would be a instead of, well,
we should overturn the ALJs and ask for additional
information to ensure that this docket
can be administratively complete.
This has nothing to do with the validity of the document,
of the dispute it has to do with the completeness
of the application.
-: Yeah, we've got a rule that sets standard of what needs
to be provided and blanket affidavits
and kind of shorthand work.
Doesn't seem to, does not pass the bar in my mind
and we need to see more detailed nature and contents
of the evidence that's in question.
-: So I think this case presents us with a policy issue
of about trying to strike a balance between the Commission's
efficient resolution and formal complaints by mark
participants, stakeholders against Hrncir versus applying
the requirements in 22251 that apply to formal complaints
against Hrncir, right.
In one hand, you wanna make sure that you get all
the information according to the requirements,
to be able to efficiently resolve these complaints
at the Commission.
And on the other hand, you don't want to,
you gotta read the rule and you gotta make sure that we're
not being overly restrictive to the point
where we're requiring trial on paper up front
in the entire evidentiary record.
I mean, discovery plays a role in these,
in contested case proceedings.
And if you read the rule, I mean,
I think staff brings up three main points where they found
that the complaint was deficient.
And I'll start with the affidavits.
I think they were deficient.
I think NG's supplemental affidavit is sufficient
at this time.
They did come back and include a whole lot more information,
that's consistent with other affidavits that have been filed
in complaints against Hrncir in prior cases.
And so, I think Viridity would have to come back
and file affidavit that con consists of that type
of information for us to be able to find it sufficient.
With respect to the prong on or the requirement
that the complaint contains a concise statement
without argument of pertinent facts,
a record would, a record was,
you have to provide a, each fact has to be supported
by a reference to the record if any.
I think the, if any portion of it provides some flexibility
to be able to obtain those facts
through the complaint contestive case process.
And that's the rule of targeted discovery.
I know that the 104 page complaint does contain some
arguments in there,
but I think these are complicated matters
and sometimes a concise statement is,
could be a very long statement when it comes down
to ERCOT technical matters.
So I think with respect to the first prong of,
or this first requirement under 22251D,
I would be interested in getting your thoughts on that
because I don't, you can read it in one way of requiring
that each fact is supported by reference to the record.
If any, but that if any words matter, and that if any,
in my mind provides some flexibility to be able to support
it later through discovery.
With respect to the second requirement,
a record consisting of a certified or sworn copy
of any document constituting or evidence
in the matter complained of, the record may also continue
any other item heard into the issues or points presented
for review, including affidavits or other evidence
on which a complaint relies.
I think we don't know what Viridity and NG has.
We can't just assume they had the information,
didn't provide it to us, is what I'm thinking.
They get, they have,
they need to give us everything they have up front.
But again, that is the role of discovery
is to get additional information in the record.
So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts
on these two requirements.
I think we're on the affidavit.
I think the supplemental affidavit from NG obviously
is sufficient and Viridity is continues not to be,
but that's only one piece of the requirement
and obviously would require some action there.
But the other two requirements under the procedural role
in my mind, I think is worth having a discussion about,
because again, while we have a formal,
a rule that addresses formal complaints against our ERCOT,
that's different from our general complaint rule,
it's for a reason.
But at the same time,
we must ensure that market participants and stakeholders
have an opportunity, which they will to file a complaint
against ERCOT on matters that have been addressed
through a ERCOT action, whether ADR or not.
And be able to give us everything they have up front,
but not continue to kick these complaints back
because they didn't meet everything to the team.
I mean, that's the whole role of discovery
in a contested case process.
-: Sure, I don't think anybody wants to kick
the complaints back endlessly.
I do think we've got the rule established a hurdle
that needs to be met.
And to your point of if NG and Viridity
don't have that information, they need to tell us
rather than just kind of a leaving it open to question.
-: Mr. Chairman. -: Yes sir.
-: I totally agree.
If they don't have it, they don't have it,
but my reading of their responses complaint is that
it's their option whether they provide it or not.
So...
-: And it's a question of when.
So on that Commissioner,
it sounds like we believe there's daylight
in terms of the first issue
of granting appeal, staff's appeal.
We believe that there's there's room to be filled in
by the complainants, to better establish the record.
So first hurdle, right.
-: Which grant the appeal. -: Yes, sir.
To grant the appeal. -: Yes or no?
What I'm hearing is in some version.
-: Yes, but it's what, when you grant the appeal,
what instruction is sent back down to fill out
the evidentiary record for that stage of the process?
Correct, I mean, we're trying to provide as detailed
a guidance as possible.
In my view, this is incredibly important.
This is good that we're hammering this out now,
'cause I believe there has to be a mechanism.
There's a legal requirement for a mechanism to exist
for complaints, for some type of appellate review
by the Commission.
So, and we haven't had to exercise that to a great deal
at the Commission until now because of our newfound,
statutory and legislative emphasis on our oversight.
But this is kind of a stage where we're acting
as the grand jury here.
We're trying to determine if there's enough evidence
to proceed with that next stage of the investigative process
and the appellate process.
So I believe there's enough to grant the appeal of staff.
There's enough daylight there.
Now, if you wanna impose your targets
on what they further owe,
absolutely, I think you've got sound arguments there,
but it needs to go back, correct?
-: Yeah, it needs to go back.
I mean, if nothing else, but on the affidavits,
like you said.
-: Sure, I mean, and but yes.
I think that we need to make sure that we get
the information we need to efficiently resolve this case.
I think we're all on the same page here.
-: Yep. Okay.
-: What I'm trying to address here is,
or trying to provide here some kind of guidance
to the parties so that they know what our expectations are
with respect to filing complaints and what they need
to go back and fill in their complaint.
And also discuss from a policy standpoint,
what, how do we want to interpret this rule
to where we provide an efficient path for stakeholders,
mark participants to file a complaint,
but not overly restricted to the point where,
having them litigate this case by trial on paper up front,
because that's just not the way
contested case proceedings work.
-: Absolutely.
-: Complaints applications are filed.
And the case in the evidentiary record is developed
throughout the entire case through discovery.
And we can't expect them to just give us everything up front
and discovery plays a role.
And so as I read through sort of the read the requirements,
I mean, there's definitely deficiencies here and there,
but how do we want to address this?
Because so ALJ,
I think put us kind of in an awkward position.
The order says sufficiently administrative complete,
well mean it's-- -: Subjective threshold.
-: It's subjective.
-: Well, and I think we could also strike a balance between
providing some guidance from the dais
and not leaving things just wide open without,
but striking balance between providing guidance,
without being overly prescriptive.
As always, whether it's this docket or routing docket
or anything else, I think we would all welcome stakeholders
to go above and beyond.
They don't always give us what we need.
And so even without specific guidance,
I think you're giving some guidance right now.
These folks should feel free to go above and beyond
what the bare minimum is.
That in any docket can make life a lot easier
for everybody involved.
So I think, I mean, I think we would all appreciate
any in all stakeholders providing more rather than less,
if they've got it.
I think we all, what I'm hearing is that we know we need
to grant the appeal.
You've provided some good guidance,
but I'd also say we welcome both of these complainants
to feel free to go above and beyond what the bare minimum
and the rule is so that we can move forward with this case.
-: I agree with your points.
I think ultimately providing guidance,
having this complaint come back because we need to resolve
this issue in some form of fashion.
So there isn't any uncertainty out there with respect
to load resource participation in a very important,
responsive reserve service for our ERCOT.
-: You bet, I mean, I wanna see this come back.
I mean, in the values are large enough.
We need to try to process this.
-: Everybody wants this to move forward.
-: Yeah.
-: So I think is we are looking for a motion
to grant the appeal.
Anybody got-- -: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed.
Give everything you need Mr. Jenay.
-: Well, I'm...
Y'all have given a little bit of guidance,
staff made particulars in their appeal
of what was deficient.
I'm not sure I'm hearing settle total agreement
with that position and perhaps we need to hedge
in grant the appeal to the extent it's consistent
with y'all's discussion here.
'Cause I think there's a little bit of daylight between
the two positions.
-: Well, I trust both these companies will do everything
in their effort to take the above and beyond approach
rather than just the bare minimum perhaps.
-: Yeah, I've never been called an optimist.
(all laugh)
-: All right, we'll be keeping a close eye
on both these entities.
-: It's a process, t's not a pretty one.
This is the start of it.
-: All right, next item please, sir.
-: Next item is 22, Docket 53442.
Before you use a revised draft order filed on June 28th,
Commissioner Cobos has a memo on this matter.
-: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Cobos, would you lay out your memo for us?
-: Yes, so my memo, I think is straightforward.
When we addressed this case at the May 26th open meeting,
we made a decision that was specifically related
to 39918, subsection B1,
which relates to the leasing operating
of mobile generation costs.
And as I read the draft order, the draft order expanded
into another provision where that related to the ownership,
procurement and operation
of transmission distribution facilities.
That is, those are types of facilities that we did not
address in our decision at the May 26th open meeting.
And from my standpoint,
I would prefer not to give policy guidance
on a statutory provision that was not addressed as part of
our decision at the open meeting and defer to the rulemaking
proceeding that will be open to implement House Bill 2483,
to provide further guidance on that statutory provision
and limit the draft order to the specific statutory
provision 399181 that we addressed in our decision.
And so my modifications to the order were intended to remove
the references to subsection B2,
that were not addressed by our decision.
And then also to remove the references of energy restoration
costs and replace them with the statutory language,
appropriate statutory language in references that are used
to relate to, that are used to refer to mobile generation
in subsection 39 of B1. -: B1.
-: Yeah, I'm okay amending the draft order
on the technical points you've made,
but I do want to be very clear that when we,
that I do believe that the statute is clear that long lead
time facilities are included in this kind of recovery
while it's not addressed in this draft order.
Those long lead time items are absolutely critical
for transmission system and reliability.
And especially in this day and age,
when we've got the supply chain issues that we've got
and we're experiencing across the state, across the country.
Long lead time items are even more important than ever
to make sure we can keep the system reliable
and we'll address that at the appropriate time.
But that makes sense to amend this draft order,
as you recommend.
Other thoughts or comments.
-: I kind of struggle with it just because we're separating
two parts of this statute.
And I don't know that it's a huge policy issue for us
to decide here.
So I'm happy to support your effort, but I just think that
if we're gonna readdress this in a future rule,
so the vast majority of those issues will be resolved then.
Since this component of the law is not apparent
in this case, it just seems like it's moot,
therefore taking it out, doesn't do anything.
But leaving it in, doesn't do anything either.
So I'm not,
I don't know where your legal thought process is on that,
but I'd be interested in that.
-: I mean--
-: Happy to hear on the side of course.
-: Yeah, subsection B2 was simply not addressed
in the this contestant case.
So it doesn't make sense to issue not to order
addressing a statutory provision that was not part
of center point's application and address in this case.
-: Yeah, Commissioner, I'm happy with the revisions as well.
And in respect your view on,
since it was not in the original proceeding,
let's leave that separate and apart.
However, it appears the policy formulation process
is heading in a direction on conforming
both the long lead time facilities
and this and harmonizing both.
-: And I agree with the chairman's point
that subsection B2 is a very important, statutory provision.
And we will certainly address that provision
in our rule making proceeding.
And I think it's important ultimately in staff's project
that they open that we, as we look to formulate a framework
to address both sets of costs in both in subsection B1
and B2, that's a perfect forum for us to create a framework
to review both sets of costs
through appropriate procedural process.
-: Agreed. -: Fair enough.
-: Yep. -: All right.
Is there a motion to approve the draft order filed
on June 29th as amended by Commissioner Cobos?
-: I would so move since I've started this whole ball of wax
and then happy to be joined.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed, motion passes.
Next item please, sir.
Well, I think that brings us to 25.
Commissioner MC Adams, do you have an update for us?
-: I do, sir.
And if you can hear me, I'll give you an update.
And then I'd also like to open the door on another issue
that has become apparent as a part of the overall DER policy
framework that we're attempting to move forward on
at the Commission and ERCOT and among our TDSPs.
So given the direction of the last open meeting
regarding the DER pilot project,
I wanted to take this opportunity to brief you
and the public on how I believe we should proceed
in order to best accomplish the formation and implementation
of such a pilot.
In future, I will better reserve comments on this topic
for docket number 51603.
Since it is our DER docket,
where responses were filed to our broad RFP
on how to best avail ourselves of the resources.
But right now I'll take it up in 52373.
My staff and I over the last week have been engaging
with stakeholders on how to best launch efforts
around the project, the pilot,
and I believe a three step plan should be considered
by the Commission.
Firstly, how to set the pilot up.
I would propose forming a informal workshop,
assembling a group of relevant stakeholders together
here at the Commission on Monday, July 11th at 9:00 AM.
Here in the Commissioner's hearing room,
to consider key goals and objectives that we hope
to accomplish through implementation of a proposed pilot.
The workshop would also discuss issues to be determined by
the Commission that we need to make decisions on
in order to launch the pilot,
which would include the scale of the project,
the duration, the participation,
the interchange of customers.
Meaning if there is a network of retail providers or NOIs,
that's availing themselves off the pilot,
then how can customers move in between reps
over the duration of that pilot?
So that they're not locked in for a number of years
under one particular plan,
because that would make it unappealing to the broadest
possible segment of customers.
So we need to answer those questions.
And then overall reliability.
The operational interconnection and export dynamics
that are sure to be observed, how do we overcome those?
And then depending on the feedback from these stakeholders,
Commissioner Gloftfelty and myself could organize
a joint memorandum, capturing consensus positions on policy
that could be addressed within the pilot.
We could then take that up for discussion within the full
Commission at our July 14th open meeting so that we could
better give direction on what next steps are.
The work group is by invitation only simply to make
the numbers of participants manageable,
given the breadth of the universe of potential stakeholders
who could be involved.
However, if members of the stakeholder community
or the public would like to be considered for inclusion,
they may reach out to my staff, which is Tiffany Woo,
whose contact information may be found on my agency homepage
on the website.
I won't advertise her location and contact information.
Somebody's gonna have to do some homework to find her,
but it is possible.
-: She's out here. -: She is right there.
Now as to the second step, a task force.
The memo, I believe will the way we are currently
envisioning this, we will articulate a belief that we need
to form a task force in the near future,
which would discuss and observe implementation of the pilot.
This group would meet periodically to discuss
operational obstacles that may present themselves
as we head into one planning,
but then two final implementation and help identify
the Commission policy areas that we need to break down
obstacles, make determinations and give instructions
to both ERCOT, TDSP or stakeholders
in order to ensure timely implementation.
And then finally, Mr. Chairman, members,
we also need to set a target implementation date or season.
And obviously that would come, I believe through feedback
from our stakeholders as a part of this workshop
on what is achievable and that way the task force
and the Commission and ERCOT working together
can help hold us accountable to that implementation date.
-: Sounds like a good path forward.
I like your optimism that the first step
will have all the questions scoped and answered
by July 14th.
-: We're wearing out horses Mr. Chairman.
These will be the broad, high level questions that need
to be answered simply to get this pretty massive project
away from the dock,
and then start moving toward our target.
-: I was gonna say, as I had said before,
I'm a believer in pilot projects as opposed
to just task force. -: Correct.
-: So a task force can plan something,
a pilot project implements something.
And what Commissioner MCAdams has suggested
is that we do the pilot project,
but the task force is kind of the overseer.
This thing is gonna, I'm happy with that being in parallel.
-: Correct. -: There are some major issues
that have to be addressed, that are being addressed
all across this country and that have to be addressed
in this docket to ensure that costs are fair and equitable,
that timelines are met,
that ERCOT issues are addressed for reliability.
And I think the process that Commissioner McAdams
has put forth will help us do that in an expedited fashion.
And I'm very appreciative of his leadership.
I think that, these are issues that will add megawatts,
there's lots of evidence out there that shows
that these types of aggregation,
virtual power plants, generation on the distribution system
will all storage on the distribution system,
all add reliability benefits.
So we're not to lag behind were to help lead this effort.
And I think that we are doing that.
-: Absolutely. -: Yeah.
-: We got a task force for the pilot project
that can then be overseen by the task force.
-: And that is exactly what we're not trying to do.
The task force vision.
And again, I don't wanna steal thunder from my memo.
I like having things in writing.
That again, we can all adopt it, adhere to.
-: It's a fantastic memo. -: Yeah, well--
-: You mean the future one? -: The future one.
-: Oh, it's gonna be really good.
-: It's perspective.
Wait, it's great.
But it would delineate a process for the task force
and the overall accountability measures for the task force.
This thing is to exist as long as the pilot does to advise
us on what are the operational hiccups that are being
experienced real time and how do we overcome those.
And to make Woody's life painful, which is,
seems to be the goal of this Commission.
-: Let me say one other thing.
And that is, this pilot concept was brought up
by one company.
This is not a one company pilot.
This is, there are lots of technologies out there.
There are lots of opportunities.
There are lots of different systems.
So we want this to be broad and diverse.
We don't want this to be about one company
and we wanna understand the benefits of these
with different technologies.
So I just wanna make sure that everybody who is interested
wants to know that this is part of that effort.
-: Right now, I have a running list of 32
potential stakeholders to be considered for the task force.
Those are entities, not individuals.
So that's why we're trying to make this manageable
because it is broad in scope.
-: I'm sure Tiffany, we hear from anymore.
-: She will indeed.
Also as a call out to the public
and the stakeholder community,
we are in search of interested non optin entities who might
consider availing themselves off the pilot project,
municipal utilities and electric cooperatives.
So we can better, so we have a as broad of a potential
sample population and sample of systems,
distribution systems who could exercise
the capabilities of DERs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, after that,
I would like to dovetail into a broader conversation about
distribution generation resources, which has become a--
-: Before we dive into that. -: Yes, sir.
A couple closing thoughts.
Of course, I know ERCOT wanna make sure everybody listening
at home knows ERCOT will be involved in this.
This is not a exclusively Commission initiative.
-: Absolutely.
-: And then lastly, the, as these scoping efforts,
key questions, key metrics are identified
and these issues are worked through,
of course you will come back.
You all collectively will come back and brief
this Commission and the public on the scope,
scale and specs if you will, of the pilot project
before anything is plugged in.
-: Yes sir.
-: Just wanna make sure the books,
I know that's your intention.
-: That's why we're gonna put things in writing.
You will see them.
-: Make sure the folks at home know that this is gonna be,
this process will include visibility,
what that will look like. -: Yes, sir.
-: All right. Thank you.
-: On the issue of DGRs,
a parallel proceeding at the Commission or project
at the suggestion and urging of Commissioner Gloftfelty
is pursuing better and more uniformed interconnection
of DGRs at distribution level.
Key word distribution, distributed generation resources.
And look, operational issues are becoming apparent
or operational implications are becoming apparent
that we will need to have a clear view on
in the coming months.
And one of those, and we can bring stakeholders up
to discuss this, but the reason I'm flagging it here
is because I believe this Commission
as a part of that project will need to make decisions
and give guidance to both ERCOT and our TDSPs
to help them actually allocate the bandwidth
to solve some of these problems in the near future.
Commissioner Gloftfelty has been a leader on this.
I have become aware of it because it fits in,
and it impacts the overall allocation of resources
to be able to accommodate the DER pilot as well.
So what in my view we must overcome is,
is we've gotta do our part to make hard decisions,
to give guidance to stakeholders and the grid administrator
so that it doesn't become a choice of killing off
one project over the other,
because we simply don't have the manpower
or the policies adopted to accommodate both.
And as such Mr. Chairman, if you'll humor me,
I'd like to invite up a couple of folks to talk through
some of those situations that have become apparent.
It'll be short. -: Invited testimony.
-: Not much.
-: Good. Go ahead. -: I second.
-: Would Liz Jones and Woody Rickerson approach.
Okay, thank you both for coming up.
I'm gonna set the table now.
One of the issues that has become apparent
is interconnection of DGRs at distribution
that are participating in ancillary services,
have a special qualification at ERCOT
and especially for our TDSPs
in terms of their emergency planning processes.
Those DGRs by definition, under ERCOT, NERC
and Liz will explain all the restraints in a moment.
Cannot be rolled as a part of an emergency plan.
They cannot be rotated.
That's a key condition that causes operational issues.
If a feeder cannot be rolled everything beyond
that feeder cannot be rolled.
And thus, if everything's critical,
then nothing's critical to your point, Mr. Chairman.
And this presents one of the key policy decisions we're,
I believe we're gonna need to make sooner rather than later,
so that they can actually address issues that will come up
as part of the pilot on DERs and the interconnection of vast
amounts of batteries that could occur at distribution
that want to avail themselves of ancillary services,
which is good for the system,
because we're gonna need more of that sooner
rather than later, but we've gotta work out some details.
Liz was kind enough to bring this to our attention.
We had a small stakeholder work group on the issue
and Commissioner Gloftfelty and I are both briefed up,
but Liz, could you explain the issue for us.
Man: Liz, if you on, just a moment,
we have a audio problem.
-: Liz, go forward. -: Sorry.
-: Liz Jones for Oncor.
The way the distribution resource construct was originally
undertaken at ERCOT provides that a distribution resource
providing ancillary services must be exempt from load check.
That in turn has a consequence for at least my company.
And I think others that a bay in the substation
has to be dedicated to that particular resource
so that they can be on a separate feeder
so that we can meaningfully move forward with the emergency
operations plans that we hope not to have to use.
But nonetheless must maintain according to Commission,
ERCOT and NERC responsibilities.
-: So we can keep access to the reserves in that battery
without preventing more granular load chip.
-: So the conversation that we began having, and that I'm,
I think ERCOT will engage in.
I'm not sure they have an answer yet is,
at the transmission level, QSE providing ancillary services
do not do so on a specific resource basis.
In other words, they commit to providing X megawatts
of responsive reserve,
but they don't say it's gonna come from this plant
or that plant.
The question becomes then whether a similar policy might
and should be adopted for distribution resources,
such that it would not be a TDSP obligation to isolate
and ensure ongoing, constant, more near constant access
subject to substation poll, whatever else, interruptions.
And that rather the QSE who holds those resources
in this case, the immediate object is the DERs source.
The distribution interconnected batteries is instead
responsible for ensuring access to that appropriate amount
of reserves in however they choose to do so.
So rather than having to determine if there's some kind of
discount factor that needs to be applied because
distribution resources may or may not be readily available,
we instead pull back from the dedicated feeder rule,
which is in place at ERCOT right now.
And turn instead to the more general principle that it is up
to resources to ensure that they have availability
of quantities and kinds that they have bid.
-: And presumably consistent with penalties,
if they fail to provide the resources they've obligated.
-: Yes, and the Commission has demonstrated
a history of enforcement accountability in that respect.
-: So please Commissioner-- -: Go on.
-: The reason to flag this is because everything
that we're doing right now is imposing human resource
and manpower constraints on them as in Liz's company Oncor
and all of the transmission distribution service providers
in terms of policy making and planning.
It also does that on ERCOT staff.
So the reason Woody Rickerson has been called up is because
it's to frame how insurmountable a challenge is this,
so that the Commission can weigh all of that.
And then if we can help by making basic decisions
and giving guidance, then we should do that.
Do so in the future, after we digest all the facts.
But Woody tell me, given the way Liz has shaped this,
this is a distribution problem that eventually trickles
its way up to transmission system management,
which is your world. -: That's right.
So Woody Rickerson with ERCOT.
Just a little bit of history.
We have been working on this for three or four years.
And the big disconnect is that ERCOT
looks at the transmission system.
We model the transmission system and we don't model
or actively take data from distribution companies.
The distribution load is represented
in the ERCOT control model, but it's not explicitly modeled.
So this has been going on for several years.
We had a, at one point we had a DGR moratorium.
We said you can't connect the ERCOT system.
We worked through those issues with the TSPs,
with the DGR developers.
And beginning this year we implemented
a DGR interconnection process.
So we are now able to reliably interconnect DGRs
to the system and get their power up to the transmission
system and our SCD system and EMS and MMS
and everything else can works with that scenario.
So we've got that, we can do that now.
And that's a, I think that's a major foundation
to build all these other things on.
-: So right now you're saying DGR batteries
can be connected at and deploy discharge into a Oncor
at what level?
-: At both the distribution, at the distribution level,
they can put their power into the wholesale market
and be dispatched.
-: At the distribution and transmission level.
-: That's right, both.
-: That's a business decision for that battery company.
-: That's right.
-: But they currently right now can connect
at both transmission and distribution level.
-: That's right.
We have an active, not only that, but we put together
a small generator interconnection process.
So the process as small generator goes through
to interconnect is not the same as 100 megawatt generator.
So it's an expedited process.
We've done a lot of work to build a foundation,
to make all this work.
What Liz brought up is is there though
this dedicated feeder idea.
But I do think there are ways that we can work around that
and we can investigate that.
And so we're on board with working through the remaining
problems, but I think we've already kicked a bunch
of those problems already.
-: Yeah, and another question.
If they battery wants to connect at the distribution level
and participate slowly, entirely in the realtime market
or the day ahead market, not in ancillary services,
does it still need a dedicated bay dedicated feeder?
-: Not under the current ERCOT rules.
-: Okay, so right now.
-: So the distinction is we have resources
that are further out on the, a distribution feeder populated
by all kinds of customers and resources.
And the question is they would very much like to access
ancillary service markets.
So that's one population.
The other population is, some DESR developers
who are finding that the cost implications
of interconnecting at a dedicated feeder
are burdensome and they can articulate that better than I.
And there's been a lot of push and pull over how
those burdensome costs, if you will, should be allocated.
And it's a tough nut to crack.
And so it may be that ERCOT concludes that the dedicated
feeder is the only reasonable alternative.
And if so, that will lead the next discussion,
which is appropriate cost allocation,
but rather than continuing to struggle with that,
we're asking for ERCOT and batteries and wires companies
to consider whether there is an alternative that reduces
the time and the money to interconnect
in that very particular way.
-: Okay, but I want to be clear before people start
saying that not you all,
but the broader stakeholder universe
or media, general public starts hearing that batteries
can't connect to ERCOT.
That's not true.
They can connect at the transmission level.
They can connect at the distribution level right now today.
-: Yes. -: This is only about batteries
that want special access to a special bucket of revenue
in the ancillary services,
but otherwise they could participate
in the normal energy market.
They can participate in the forward market without
any changes being made made right now today, correct?
-: Yes. -: Mr. Chairman,
I would say that that small little market ancillary service
market and the products within that are what are becoming
the most important parts for grid reliability in the future,
as we have ramping needs obviously frequency,
and we have regulation up and down.
We need those for the reliability of the system
and getting more in there, lowers the cost of this
and provides us additional backups for when we have other
providers that are not in the system.
-: That's fine, happy to have all of the above,
but I want to be clear that there is nothing in place today,
preventing batteries from accessing the ERCOT market
at both the transmission or distribution over.
-: Well, so let me just say the one thing that might be
preventing them is a undefined process that has TDSPs
doing things at different times,
putting different costs on them and not allowing them
any certainty in the process.
This is what we did.
-: Only if they wanna access ancillary services.
-: Correct, but this is what we did
in the generation interconnection process 20 years ago,
was we created the entire framework,
irrespective of what they wanted to participate in.
We created the framework to make sure that
the interconnection happened,
that the interconnection costs were understood
and that the timelines were understood by all parties
and those that wanna finance them.
So if we can get that box put together,
I think that that helps us.
We are gonna have to address these issues sooner
rather than later.
-: This is an effort that is warranted
and these questions need to be answered.
I just wanna make sure the public is clear.
-: Got it.
-: That there is other than access to the ancillary services
market, which is at 6,500 megawatts
out of our 75,000 megawatt market,
this is only about access to that special
little bucket of revenue.
And I don't, I'm trying to avoid the misrepresentation
that ERCOT won't allow batteries to connect.
That's all I'm trying to avoid.
These questions need to be answered,
the more information we can have the better.
And we certainly want all of the above resources across
the spectrum real time, day ahead,
every version of ancillary,
just trying to avoid misrepresentation.
I'm not in any way trying to indicate that this is not
a prudent and necessary process.
-: Thank you.
And cap that all off.
I see battery developers out in the room and fear not
the reason this is flagged is because there needs
focused Commission level work groups on this topic
to help work through the operational issues
that we just flagged.
And that's why I wanted to suggest this and raise it
in the context of the DERs 'cause that's exactly
what we're proposing on the DERs.
However, another focus of this Commission is the bandwidth
of our key regulated utilities and the grid administrator.
So that's why I wanted kind of a head nod
from Mr. Rickerson and also Ms. Jones is whether we can work
through this first operational obstacle in a timely way
that helps ease the administrative burden
on solving this problem in the near future.
Do we believe that is accomplishable given everything else
you are tasked with doing right now?
-: Yes, especially if you give us more resources.
-: All right.
-: Can I say something?
Obviously, the staff is something that we are all challenged
with, both in the PUC, within ERCOT, within the TDSPs.
We all have our costs covered, all of us.
The customer pays our costs,
but when we have merchant generators who are out there
or merchant batteries that are trying to connect
to the system, it is not their money.
It is investor money.
And they, I believe we owe it to them to make these
processes timely, understood,
because they are spending somebody else's money
that is not recoverable,
unless they make it into the market.
That's risk capital.
That's very different than rate return capital.
And we owe them the benefit of the doubt
to make these things happen.
And I know that some of the transmission owners
they've been wanting to do this,
they've been wanting to interconnect storage
at the distribution level for many years,
that they would own.
And I guarantee the issues would be resolved very quickly
if they owned them.
And I encourage them to continue to push
and use that expedited effort that they would,
if it was their own generation.
-: Good for our TDSPs.
-: Commissioner Gloftfelty, just to clarify.
Our ability to run our company and to successfully seek
great recovery of our costs is directly tied to our ability
to meet the customer needs and resources are customers too.
And we firmly believe that.
They are as important a customer as the people in houses
or the people in a refinery.
And we view them that way. -: Good.
-: So I think the point Mr. Chairman
is between our two offices,
we're gonna establish that work group and work through
the process concurrent to the straw man development
that is ongoing within the stakeholder community right now,
and their engagement with our own PUC staff,
and then bring this back as decisions need to be made
on our part to ensure timely implementation.
-: Well, makes sense.
And as you say,
we don't know the answers to any of these things.
The point is to get the process moving,
get the informed stakeholders involved to make sure
we can start driving towards a well-informed decision point.
-: Yes. -: Correct.
-: Excellent.
All right, thank you all.
You're curious.
-: Certainly for, thank you.
-: Leadership on that Commissioner MCAdams
and Commissioner Gloftfelty.
Thank y'all for leading the charge.
We don't have anything on item 26 through 32,
which brings us to item number 33.
Commissioner Cobos has an update for us on transmission.
-: All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought it would be a great opportunity to provide
an update on the Rio Grande Valley transmission facilities
that the Commission ordered this past October.
Given all the in recent interests by the legislature
on transmission infrastructure development,
to relieve congestion, state, and recent activity
associated with the Rio Grande Valley
transmission facilities that were ordered by the Commission.
Just for background purposes.
Again, last October, the Commission took action.
Utilized, never report been used statutory authority
to order construction of transmission lines of facilities
in the Rio Grande Valley to ensure safe and reliable service
in the area.
The Rio Grande Valley facilities that we have ordered
addressed seven of 16 existing GTCs in the state
and will push back the reliability need in the area
to 2033 and provide much needed resiliency
in this hurricane tropical storm prone area.
So with respect to recent activity, as you may recall,
we ordered a second line to be added to a double circuit
capable line that runs from San Miguel to the Palmetto.
And then also ordered what we called at the time
close-the-loop transmission facilities in the deep,
lower Rio Grande Valley.
These close-the-loop project is now called
Palmetto King Fisher.
And so pursuant to our order,
a joint application was filed by Sherry Land in AP, Texas
yesterday on Wednesday, June 29th, 2022
for these facilities.
And it's my understanding based on conversations I've had
with the company that they expect to have these facilities
energized by April 2026.
It is a very congested area with a lot of folks
living down there.
And so those facilities are expected to be in line.
Then, as far as the second circuit that runs from Sal Miguel
to Palmetto there, as you may recall,
there is no CCN amendment necessary for this line
and the energization based on the progress reports
that I received from the companies that are responsible
for building this line would occur,
are expected to occur by June, 2024.
So progress is being made,
and I just wanted to appraise you of those transmission
facilities provided with an update on those transmission
facilities that we ordered this past Fall.
With respect to the long term project,
the new 345 KB transmission project that I believe
will be built by AEP taxes and stock.
AEP is starting to develop their CCN process.
I mean, their CCN application and their expectation
is that they would have the line energized three years
after the Commission approves the CCN application.
So expected goal is end of 2026.
So by 2026, we'll have all these facilities in place
that we ordered and deem critical for reliability
in the Rio Grande Valley area.
-: And as you've said in the past resiliency.
-: Yes, sir. -: The line going down
the center of the valley and the Western line are critical.
In case we have a weather event in the Gulf of Mexico,
and we need additional power going into,
or coming out of the valley.
These three lines are really important for resiliency
in the valley. -: Yeah.
-: Very important point, thank you.
Thank you for that update.
This is a hugely important project for both reliability
and resiliency, not only for the Rio Grande Valley,
but for the broader ERCOT system.
And as we've all seen throughout this process,
this would not have happened without your leadership.
Thank you for taking the lead on this.
And I can't overemphasize how important
this transmission project is.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
-: Don't have anything on 34,
which brings us to item 35, Mr. Jenay.
-: Item 35 is project 53353.
It's a request for our proposals to provide live internet
video coverage of public hearing to meetings
at this Commission.
Commission staff filed a memo and proposed order
that would delegate authority to the executive director.
-: Thank you, sir.
Thoughts, comments, or motion to approve the proposed order.
-: So moved. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed, motion passes.
We don't have anything on 36 through 40.
So having convened in a duly notice open meeting,
the Commission will now at 10:53 AM on June 30th, 2022,
hold a closed session pursuant to Chapter 551 Texas
government code section 5510.071, 5510.074
and 5510.076, we'll be back in a bit.
And those would you all who won't be sticking around,
have a Happy 4th of July.
Concerning, well, hold on a second.
We are now back in open session,
closed session is here about concluded at 11:10 AM
on June 30th, 2022.
And our public meeting is now resumed.
Considering the discussion and closed session.
I'll entertain a motion to request representation
from the attorney general to join TCQ
as a petitioner in Texas V Stone Hinge Utility company,
course number D1GN22-2804 in Travis County, Texas.
Is there a motion?
-: So moves. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: None opposed, motion passes.
Thank you all.
Having no further business before this Commission,
this meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas
hereby adjourned, (tapping gavel) Happy 4th.