Good morning. This meeting, 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
29 September 2022. For the record, my name is Peter
Lake with me today are Will McAdams Lori Cobos Jimmy
Glotfelty and Kathleen Jackson. Uh, we've got a good
amount to cover today, but before we get to our formal
agenda, do want to recognize the impact hurricane Ian
is having on florida right now. Uh, one of the hardest
hitting hurricanes I think in in recent history. I
know Texans are familiar with the devastation that
can be wreaked in events like that. Obviously thoughts
and prayers to those impacted hope everyone gets through
it safely. Uh, I do want to recognize the multiple
Texas utilities who have already sent lineman and cruise
to pre stage in florida to be ready to help put lines
back up in place as soon as the areas are clear, we're
happy to help our neighbors. Uh, that's what Texans
and americans do. Uh, and we, we uh, are in similar
situations, sometimes two, sometimes when hurricanes
hit our shores, we ask our neighbors for help too.
So happy to help out florida uh, and wish the best
to the crews who are on the ground there uh, from texas
from florida, All the other states that are helping
out
a couple agenda notes. We do have uh, this is a special
meeting for commission rules and projects so we will
not have public comment today and we will not be taking
up item number one. Before we get to the formal programming
Our executive Director has an update. Mr Thank you
Mr Chairman and Commissioners. Good morning. Um you
covered what I was gonna say first about the mutual
assistance programs and and all the personnel that
left here and went to florida and our thanks secondly
thanks to our staff all over the agency to prepare
for this meeting, to get these proposals on this
agenda, took a herculean effort by staff all over this
agency, just not in those particular subject matter
divisions. And so I want to thank all staff for their
efforts to get get this agenda prepared today and and
all those proposals ready for your review and consideration
And finally I want to recognize Shawn Hazard on our
staff. So um you know, a few years ago I was able
to convince our previous executive Director that it
would be a good idea for this agency to start a tuition
reimbursement program to help folks get their undergraduate
and graduate degrees. Sean took us up on that and has
come just an inch away from completing his degree at
W. G. U. And I think it's a it's a testament to
to him and to his dedication to continually improving
himself and I think his uh shows what an agency can
can really do when it helps out in its employees that
are looking to improve, improve themselves And so I
want to congratulate Sean on finishing his degree
speech.
Alright that will, thank you. Mr Gleason, that'll bring
us to our consent agenda. Mr Journeay could you please walk
us through that? Good morning Commissioners by individual
ballot the following items were placed on your consent
agenda. 2, 3, 4 and 9.
Is there a motion to approve the items just described by Mr
Journeay. Moved. Second. all in favor say aye, aye
none opposed, motion passes
uh brings us to our next item please. (item:5:52709) Mr Journeay next
item is item five, docket 52709. It's compliance
filing for docket 52321 which was ERCOTs debt
obligation under subchapter M. ERCOT filed its first
Annual True up under that sub chapter for its debt
obligation order. All right, I'm recused from both
this item and item six, So I will turn this over to
commissioner McAdams. Great, thank you. Mr Chairman
Um uh so as a part of agenda item number five, compliance
filing for docket number 52321 application
for ERCOT um for a debt obligation order, pursuant
to chapter 39 Sub chapter M, of the public utility
regulatory act. I believe there are two issues to take
up here. Um First uh does ERCOTs first, quarterly True
up filing, comply with PURA and does the dead obligation
order, and second uh should we delegate authority to
docket management for the for future compliance items
like this ones. Um I welcome any thoughts. I certainly
have some I think yes. Okay great. There's a degree
of certainty to these filings, a regular cadence that
this will be experience. So I think this is, is a prime
target for delegation but yes, yes, I I you know these
things are are ones that are best handled at the, at
the staff level because they are going to be continuous
over there for many, many years. So um I agree with
you and I appreciate your leadership on this issue
Thank you for that. Um So at this time I'll entertain
a motion to find that ERCOT first quarterly true up
Uh I'm sorry. Um
Okay find that ERCOTs first annual true up filing
is sufficient and complete uh and in compliance with
PURA and the relevant provisions of the debt obligation
order uh approve ERCOT proposed, revised of all charges
as filed effective starting with the November 2022
building period and delegate authority to docket
management to address compliance dockets like this
one. Uh additionally direct O. P. D. M. To draft an
order accordingly, I'd entertain that motion so moved
go have a second, all those in favor say aye, I all
those opposed motion passes. (item:6:52710) Um Next up uh agenda item
number six, docket number 52710 Mr Journeay uh
walk us through that uh 52710, it's compliance
filing for docket 52322 which is uh ERCOT
debt obligation under sub chapter N, uh they filed
their first quarterly Troop. Okay uh members similar
to the previous docket there are two issues here. Uh
First is ERCOT first, quarterly true up filing comply
with PURA and the debt obligation order. And second
should we delegate authority to docket management for
future compliance items like this one. Um and I agree
um any other discussion members? Yeah, I think it's
clear it's yes and yes. Okay, great. Um at this time
I'll understand a motion finding that ERCOT its first
quarterly Tru up filing is sufficient. Complete. And
in compliance with PURA and the relevant provisions
of the debt obligation order, I'd also approve ERCOT
proposed daily uplift charges has filed effective starting
with the november 2022 building period, delegate authority
to docket management to address compliance dockets
like this one and direct O P D. M to draft an
order accordingly at this time I'd entertain that motion
all those in favor say aye, I all those opposed motion
passes.
Okay. Mr Chairman, I will yield back to you sir.
All right, thank you, efficient work. Uh Next time
please, Mr Journeay. (item:7:46304) Next item's, item seven, project
46304. It's oversight proceeding regarding ERCOT
matters arising out of docket 45624 which was an application
the city of Garland to ammend CCN that would connect
in with the Southern cross proposed DC tie.
ERCOT filed, its 11 status update in which it stated
that with the exception attracted to an implementation
of several system charges, it considers its work on
commissions directives to be complete. We posted this
at the request of our fearless leader of the across
Texas dc type project.
Mhm. Is that me? I'm trying to lead it into
a suspect. We have some comments from the diet very
very short. But listen this um I want to say thank
you to the staff of ERCOT and staff and staff of
the commission and to the industry um as we've seen
I think almost a year ago, um Mr Chairman, you, I brought
this up and you said take the lead and run and get
this thing done, get regulatory certainty here. Um
I think that's what we've done. Uh, it's been a docket
that's been out there for um Since 2017 regulatory
certainty when it comes to large financial projects
is really important. So, um, you know, I think the
the good thing, the things that have happened on this
first and foremost is that fork has waived jurisdiction
on DC ties yet again. So this is our responsibility
Uh, this is what we price, how we want this to work
Um if this line becomes reality second that um in this
in the directives that, that the puc gave ERCOT,
Um there were a lot of things about reliability of
the system, how a DC line might affect reliability
of the system. ERCOT has 100% authority to close down
this tie, just like they do every other tie if there's
an emergency on their ERCOT system, so we should expect
them to protect our system first. That's just the way
it's gonna happen and that's the way it happens with
the, with the existing ties. Um there is only one directive
that is not complete um that's number two. Um that's
because it requires uh the the other side of the interconnection
um to have an operating agreement with ERCOT, that's
a very normal course of business when you figure out
where the other side is. Um Now let me just say very
quickly um obviously I in my past life I had been a
developer of DC transmission lines. These are, they're
hard, they're unique, they're, they're kind of uh um
square pegs in the round hole of regulation and that's
why I have pushed this because our actions today do
not create certainty, create a certain environment
for this to happen. They helped that the financial
markets, um the capacity purchasers on the line, uh
those who want resources across this line, they are
the ones who make this happen, We are just finishing
a regulatory proceeding and getting out of the way
So um but each and every month um cost money and when
you don't have a guaranteed rate of return at some
point in time, in my experience, mine was nine years
uh that capital ran out and um that's why I push, I
think these have value and um we'll just see, we'll
see how this proceeds going forward. Um I do have a
motion but I'm happy to uh to discuss any any issues
here, but I would highlight that this is the large
this would be will be the largest of the multiple interconnects
We've already we already have multiple interconnects
to other grids. This would be the largest yet another
one. Uh but in addition to existing interconnect to
outside grids uh and on based on the description you
laid out, is it fair to say that we at this at
this point we the regulators have completed everything
we can at this point in the process and are handing
the baton to the private sector to run with it as far
as they can. Ok, that's I mean that's an important
part and that's an important part of how Texas approaches
regulation. We want to do the take care of business
that needs to be done for reliability and for our consumers
and then hand it to the private market to to take it
from there.
Any other questions, comments or Mr Chairman uh Commissioner
Glotfelty No, I appreciate your comments and I would
echo the theme of them. Um in 2015, the legislature
required uh that the puc do due diligence on the scope
scale magnitude of impact of Southern cross and the
puc did that in concert with ERCOT. ERCOT spent a number
of years uh blazing a trail that others may follow
Southern Cross potentially. Uh but ultimately, what
will result is another tool in the toolbox for Texas
to introduce competitive forces to keep energy prices
lower than they otherwise would be. And that's an important
aspect for Texas consumers. Texas ratepayers, Texas
businesses who depend on the cost of that energy for
their economic livelihood. And so, um I hope that Southern
Cross succeeds, I hope that we will be able to experience
a system benefit by virtue of this new interconnection
I appreciate ferc uh utilizing jurisdictional restraint
in terms of pressing uh potential uh claims and um
I look forward to being able to see how the counter
party relationship develops um for this project so
that we know um on both sides of the border, who we're
dealing with and uh and what we can experience for
years to come. Well put,
I don't think I have any much more to add on on
the topic. I mean obviously this line has been being
looked at for a number of years now that I can recall
in, but I know a lot of due diligence has gone into
the project by way of getting to Ferc disclaimer of
jurisdiction the Commission has done its due diligence
with the ccN order and the revised order that imposed
the numerous directives that ERCOT has been steadfastly
working on over the last several years um ultimately
now by the procedural actions that I think Commissioner
Glotfelty will recommend we will step back and let
the private developers um work on bringing this project
to fruition and continue to monitor in terms of who
our neighbor will be and um the following step of Southern
Cross executing a standard mark participant form with
ERCOT at the time that um, you know, at the right time
when it's the whole issue is ripe and um, you know
ultimately will have the chairman noted one of the
bigger ties the biggest high into the air ERCOT region
that we've had thus far and we'll have a model in a
framework that we can utilize in the future, potentially
as we evaluate other ties that we may um find her in
the public interest. Thank you.
Well, I'd just like to thank you for your leadership
and your hard work over the last year. Uh, there was
a challenge presented and then um in the public's best
interest and Texas backs interest, there were a number
of conditions that had been put in place to make sure
that that was preserved and you know, so important
going forward that we, you know, operate the grid as
a system and that we have, as you mentioned, all the
tools in the toolbox to um to be able to, you know
provide the best reliable service for Texans. So thank
you for your hard work. Well put. How about that motion. I
would I'm gonna read this so bear with me this isn't
my forte reading that is um math quite frankly but
I move that we multi state transmission lines, he's
got he's your guy um I move that we instruct docket
management issue in order finding that the commission
agrees with ERCOT solutions to our directives and closing
out this project. The order should also open a new
project and require ERCOT to provide updates regarding
the proposed interconnection and inform the commission
of developments as needed in the new project. Also
ERCOT should be required to notify the commission in
the project when a coordination agreement is executed
and when southern Cross has executed ERCOT market participant
agreement Since the commission's order granting the
CCN amendment for garland requires that both of those
events occur before the rusk to Panola transmission
line can be energized. Got a motion is there a second
second motion second all in favor say aye, aye. None
opposed motion passes. Thank you for your work. Commissioner
Glotfelty ERCOT staff commission staff
big big milestone in a big big project
I think that brings us to number eight don't have anything
there. What's next on our agenda. Mr Journeay. (item:10:53385) Number 10 it's
project 53385 it's a project to submit emergency operation
plans and related documents under commission rule 25
53. Commission staff's filed a memo and a recommended
weather emergency preparedness report to be submitted
to the legislature. Thank you sir. I know I certainly
feel this fulfills our statutory obligation but also
want to thank Teresa Harris and the team for struggling
struggling through that. That was an uphill uphill
battle uh in many ways but I appreciate the hard work
I'm glad they got it over the finish line thoughts
comments. No, I I support the report. I think it's
well done um has been a struggle and and staff accomplished
their their mission really appreciate appreciate the
work. Sure. So I would move to adopt the report chairman
if I may provide an update. Um it came to staff's attention
um earlier this week that some of the data in the underlying
a central report that is attached um was incomplete
and we would ask that you delegate to staff the authority
to update the report as necessary to incorporate the
missing data. Yeah, I would move to adopt the report
and delegates staff authority to make the changes necessary
to incorporate the latest available data. Thank you
sir. I've got a motion. 2nd 2nd. Alright
Motion a second. All in favor say aye unopposed. Motion
passes. Thank you again team next item please. The
(item:11:53401) Next item is item 11, Project 53401 Electric weather
preparedness Standards Phase two. Commission staff's
filed a memo in a proposal for publication. Uh mr McAdams
has filed a memo Commissioner, I think you've all seen
your memo but could you lay that out for us, you guys
appreciate it. Um Members I filed my memo to demonstrate
that uh I believe the staff proposed rule may create
unintended consequences in the way that has framed
uh 16 TAC sub sections 25.55 Subsection C. Subsection
one and subsection B. Um and this is the weatherization
for generation facilities, but depending on our discussion
and consideration, it could affect the standards incorporated
for both transmission facilities and generation and
that's what you see in the memo. Um First in terms
of the unintended consequence, uh by creating a construct
that a generation resource will either comply with
the minimum ambient temperature at which they have
sustained operations or the 95th percentile minimum
72 hour average temperature reported by the ERCOT weather
study for a weather zone in which the facility is located
By adopting the stance, we would set up circumstances
where a generator may be subject to penalty that deploys
highly rated technology within their facilities that
are rated to sustain operations at a lower temperature
Um while a neighboring facility within the same weather
zone uh would be uh that installs technology that is
rated to a warmer temperature for sustained operations
would be inspected and held to a less stringent standard
within the same weather zone. So there's uh a different
standard for facilities in the same weather zone by
virtue of how high high a degree of technology they
have installed. To me this is a, it could set up a
perverse incentive uh for generators to install technology
that is not designed to cope with the coldest possible
temperatures, especially in our northern climates of
the state. Um our policy, I believe overarching should
treat generators the same insofar as the temperature
we expect them to experience by weather zone. Again
if we believe in north texas, we're going to experience
certain weather conditions and everyone should be held
on that regional wide held accountable on that regional
wide standard. Um and second, uh as indicated by my
memo at the last hope and at the last open meeting
I believe windshield should be specifically accounted
for in the mitigation efforts to be undertaken by a
generator as it applies to the weather zone. Metal
does not react well to rapid changes in temperature
and it does affect the way machines perform, nerc clearly
believes this um and believe so, since they have taken
pains to highlight this point after both the 2011 winter
event and winter storm Uri of this last year, I believe
we should impose a standard that reflects weather conditions
we believe our generators will likely face within their
areas of the state of texas where their facilities
lie, which means windshield should be acknowledged
as a mitigation standard within our rule. Um I'm happy
to take feedback and and welcome any discussion on
this. Well, thank you for taking the lead on this and
um after going through all of the combinations and
permutations over the last couple of weeks, I think
I largely agree with the two concepts you laid out
but I'm sure we have thoughts and comments from multiple
corners. Sure. And thank you Commissioner McAdams for
taking the lead on this issue. I know we had a conversation
about it last open meeting and need to get a little
bit more information. I know ERCOT um, you know, I
appreciate, you know what, he's stepping forward and
providing some more data that um, you know, led to
this discussion and, and you know, ultimately I think
your position on the, your language um, with respect
to ensuring that we have region wide zonal based preparation
standards that are consistent for all the generators
I think that's important. Um, and also the data that
we received from them on the impacts of wind chill
and where the role is and how the Windchill would impact
that Clearly ferc and neRC have identified, it is very
significant factor after 2011 and 21 ultimately I think
the generators will have to comply with windshield
um, as Nerc will, nerc and ferc will ultimately approve
the Windchill based or the weatherization um, standards
that have wind chill in and by the end of the year
and so the question then becomes, I know that calpine
filed a uh, sort of a filing that last night and this
morning and I hear what you're saying. I would just
like to try to understand um, a little bit more about
what I think that what they suggested was having a
duration MPH Windchill or 20mph wind speed associated
with the temperature. And I'm just trying to understand
that a little bit more. Yeah, so, um, and and calpine
may be able to speak more to this, but um, as I
understand it, if the application of the standard across
the weather zone again, the that region wide application
um, that's the nuance that they speak to, that they
seek to clarify um, for the purposes of facilities
and, and I don't want to open up to a show and
tell mr chairman. But I believe if, if that is our
position and we affirm through our comment that we
are applying this standard by a weather zone, we have
have satisfied their, their concern about specific
mitigation efforts being required. Um, I mean procedurally
before we get into the mechanics of the, of the weatherization
do want to say, I give very little credence to anything
filed an hour before an open meeting. Just procedurally
that's that's not enough time. Especially when you
make comments very clear comments from the diocese
and we had a, we had a discussion then that was two
weeks ago. Um, so there was, there was plenty of time
for for these issues to be brought up. That being said
Happy to hear thoughts on it. Um, I think the, the
bottom line in my mind is we need these generators
prepared to face the conditions in the part of the
state that they're going to be asked to provide to
operate in. Uh, and it needs, there needs to be some
ground truth thing. The valley has different weather
than the panhandle. Um, and so, I mean, that's just
that's the guiding principle I'm working from. We don't
want to have a requirement. So onerous that you've
got to build a, uh, uh, sports arena over your generator
We don't, we're not asking anybody to do that. Uh,
but we do need to reflect, through our standards, need
to reflect the operating conditions under which these
assets are going to be asked to provide power. Again
the bottom line is keeping these generators running
to keep people's lights on. And you know, I agree.
I mean, that that's the overarching policy framework
There's certainly some nuances in there. Happy to have
that discussion. But just from a procedural point of
view, wanted to lay that out and I certainly respect
that and, and that's kind of why, you know, the late
filing, that's why I'm sort of grappling with, you
know what it actually means. I understand what you
say. Commissioner McAdams But overall, um, on the,
on your bigger point, chairman, I wholeheartedly agree
with what you're saying. Matter of fact, I think some
of the data that we received from ERCOT indicated that
65% of the generation fleet can already comply with
the windshield factor 95, plus windchill. 65%. And
so the remains of around 65, the remainder um, would
need various additional measures that could potentially
range from, you know, small to a little bit bigger
kind of mitigation efforts. So I think that, that was
also helpful to understand that the majority of our
generation fleet is already there. And um, so I mean
I'll turn it over to any of my colleagues here who
would like to provide any comments. But I think generally
speaking, I, I'm on the same page as you McAdams policy
we do happen to have an engineer here. Well, um, I'll
weigh on this, you know, this. Um, I mean, to me, it's
about the data and the science and of course you, you
mentioned that we did have an opportunity to sit down
with ERCOT and they did share some data and information
regarding what that compliance would look like, uh
as compared to what some act, the, actually the, uh
the actual temperature event that occurred during,
um, uh, winter storm Uri and you know, kind of laying
that out, being able to, um, go in and look at a
standard that provided and, and, and accommodated windshield
really gave us, I think, um, better confidence versus
the actual data that, uh, that those temperatures and
those, uh, that weatherization would provide better
mitigation for uh, the actual event that occurred um
during winter storm Uri. Um, the number of entities
and again, this is with 85% of the actual units
reporting. So with 85% of the, of the vote in of those
with the previous standard that was proposed for the
ambient temperature. Um, 88% of those facilities would
be, you know, would not be required to do anything
Additionally, 12% would um, with the ambient temperature
uh, at the 95 or the 95 percentile with the 72 hour
windchill factor, uh, that factor that um, that number
was actually 63%. So 37% would be required to do something
So of course, what we, we don't know the unknown and
what were, you know, we, we obviously don't want to
have happened, which is, you know, what the chairman
mentioned is, you know, what is the magnitude of those
particular investments? So I think it's kind of, it's
incumbent on us to, you know, take a look at the data
um, to be able to accommodate wind, the windshield
factor, I think a lot of what entities You do and do
well in Texas as they use good professional judgment
And so if they have a standard, if we, if we apply
the standard of the 95% um, with the windchill factor
um, they're able to actually, as I understand it go
out and access the data from market, utilize the information
that is behind these numbers. Break those wind speeds
out, break those temperatures out and and basically
be able to design their facilities that will reasonably
meet these standards. So um in my mind is driven by
data. I do also support uh removing um the requirement
that would have facilities continue to operate um and
continue to meet standards that they had previously
demonstrated. Um I think if you have the 72 windshield
factor temperature at the 95%ile, um minimum averages
as we're talking about is being proposed, I believe
that is sufficient. I also think that, you know, again
from a standard standpoint, um dividing, defining the
standards based on data and science as opposed to what
has previously been demonstrated in terms of performance
actually is a sounder way of looking at it. So I base
I would basically support the two items in your memo
that you suggested, which was basically to to strike
the requirement of facilities um Continue to operate
when they had demonstrated previously um at that particular
ambient temperature and then also um the 90 establishing
the 95%ile average 72 hour windshield temperature that's
reported um in our coats historical weather study.
Um I agree with the memo. Um I do want to say
that I think this is kind of an interesting topic.
Um you can get wind chill. Um you can hit a wind
chill of say 10 degrees negative 10 degrees by having
a zero degree temperature and a two degree and a two
mile per hour wind or 10 degrees and a 30 mile per
hour wind. That does make it a little bit challenging
But I believe it's a challenge that the industry can
resolve and believe that they're gonna have to resolve
this because if we don't do it in this rule, I believe
that is going to do it in their rule. It was in
their report that said that wind chill is an important
factor to consider. So when, when Nerc um, makes
a weatherization rule, revises their weatherization
rule, it is going to be in there. So we're maybe, we're
giving them a head start on this and um, you know,
that's, that's a benefit. Um, the one thing that I
have to say on weatherization rules is that, um, we
are doing the right thing here. We're doing as the
Legislature directed, I think we are making our system
a lot more reliable here. I do not, I won't mention
the fuel component of it. That's not our bailiwick
But the thing where I still have a little bit of heartburn
is when we have um, extreme temperatures and regions
that don't expect it. So when we have the Rio grande
valley going to zero degrees, that's not their ambient
uh, temp operating temperature, that's not what they're
used to, but as we're getting more and more extreme
events. Um, however, we want to characterize those
those I think are continuing wants to continue to watch
And if we need to revise this based upon things like
that in the future, we ought to be ready and willing
to open up the rule and do that. Sorry. Mr Isn't that
the beauty of the construct that 90% of average because
that will continue? It's a self correcting mechanism
Yes, very good point.
I don't disagree that, that that's correct. So, I think
two thoughts, an important point that over time, by
adopting the statistical point in the in the distribution
That will be self correcting based on as recent events
But in addition, I think, and yes, you can get to negative
five temperature, like low temperature and little wind
or higher temperature and a lot of wind. But I think
the Commissioner Jackson's point for each of these
weather zones, that data, nobody will have to guess
they can go to and get that and it's gonna be, here's
your temperature, here's your windchill or your your
wind speed factor. So it's, it's not gonna be a guessing
game that leaves the industry kind of uh flailing in
the wind if you will and uh sure, it's the 95th percentile
But I have full confidence that this will help us meet
even more extreme events because unlike in the past
when there was nothing you were going from, you were
the folks were trying to get from 0 to 100 It's a
lot easier when you see a problem coming to get from
95 to 99th, and so I have full confidence even when
we do have events That are beyond the 95th%,ile, our
generators will be able to adapt to them. Um, and you
mentioned the fuel, that's another big factor that
plays into it and it's not part of this proceeding
but there's been great progress both at tURk and in
direct coordination with the Railroad Commission, our
critical infrastructure supply map. So it's not any
single piece of the puzzle. That's also this problem
It's all of it. Um, and in combination, I have, I have
full faith that we'll be able to keep the lights on
in extreme cold weather events. The other thing I wanted
to point out and I think the staff did a great job
on this in Barksdale and I spent a lot of time talking
about kind of the spirit of, of what I think was intended
here was around compliance. So there's been a lot of
talk about enforcement, but in terms of the effort
and we talked about this at the last open meeting,
um, that facilities and needed to be put in place ahead
of the event that the inspection would occur during
the course of, of the cold weather months and, and
also during the hot weather times of the year, uh,
that there was a whole process in place that would
promote root cause analysis by the generator and then
also there was, you know, uh if you will kind of three
strikes and a more formal root cause analysis that
was um you know, part of the process. So it's very
much targeted towards compliance and providing I think
a resource that hopefully I think the staff will be
able to provide as we kind of take this on uh to
able to be able to share best practices to be um
to be an asset to be somebody who can um again work
with the regulated community again to promote long
term compliance with these with these standards. So
I think it's two fold, it's not just setting the right
standard to the best of your ability, but it's also
putting in place those mechanisms that will help you
to be in compliance and I think you've done a fantastic
job on that. I would like to add something to that
but I think you highlighted best practices and we had
a conversation about this after the phase one weatherization
process was completed um at the ERCOT level that was
for ERCOT to work with the contractor inspector. And
I guess in the future it will be contractors and internal
staff but to really um do a post um you know, post
winner review and to develop best practices um that
they, you know, so that they have, you know, some kind
of document um that they can share with the generators
and the transmission um companies to be able to reference
what worked, what didn't work. Um Just sort of a post
review every winter and and that you can update as
best practice is a living document that will help guide
the community going forward. So that's become one of
the guiding principles of all the actions that we've
taken over the last year and a half has been to establish
a central monitoring system uh within ERCOT to manage
and and to ensure accountability for good faith, reasonable
efforts to ensure that your facilities that you hold
out are going to be on system when you're contracted
for or uh have an interest in participating um that
you are performing the maintenance that you are establishing
or moving forward on a reasonable effort to come into
compliance uh so that the state sees that you are doing
what you need to do um in order to to remain available
at times of scarcity on the system. And that goes into
the N. D. R. P. O. C. Policy. That ERCOT has considered
the maintenance outage schedule. Er um It is it is
all a system of transparency and accountability for
market participants uh for which they didn't have.
That that system before Uri and now they do and and
we're all adjusting to a new environment. Yeah and
it's making a big difference as we saw last summer
last winter this summer it's all, all of the, all of
the above. We'll put
Alright chairman, I apologize I have a question and
then a point of clarification. Uh First thanks for
the discussion and we understand the direction that
you're setting and we'll be sure to implement it um
in accordance with your direction. Second, in order
to clarify your direction, your memo addresses the
winter standards and I want to make sure that the commission
is leaving in place the ambient temperature standard
the greater of the ambient temperature standard or
the maximum temperature which the resources operated
during the summer. So in in in my view, I think this
is more of a pressing issue for the for the winter
conditions, for the cold weather conditions because
that gives you that that rating experience. Again,
everybody operate Texas is still a summer peaking sis
and I don't know if you want to call Woody up on
that from a planning perspective, but I believe you
could still leave in the ambiance standard for summer
conditions. Um the problem is not nearly as acute
Yeah, that works for me but good point of clarification
but that language will capture the increasingly hot
weather that we're experiencing.
All right. The other point of clarification that I
have is um I was asked um by ERCOT legal staff to
make sure that it was clear that in subsection C three
and subsection F three, which address the filing of
declarations of preparedness that a filing of a declaration
of preparedness under this rule would supersede ERCOT
current protocol language uh in protocol section 3.21
for anybody who's paying attention. Um and so that
when an entity files their declaration under the rule
that it feels like Y'all are about to adopt, they do
not have to file concurrently. Another declaration
under 3.21. This is simply an administrative bureaucratic
thing because ERCOT is in the process of writing an
NPRR to revise that section of the protocols, but it
won't be adopted by the board or before you for consideration
until after this rule should go into effect. That makes
sense to me. No reason to repeat duplicate effort.
Thank you very much. Yes. Um Alright. Um I think we're
at the point to look for a motion to approve the proposal
for adoption as amended by commissioner. McAdams memo
And I would so move Mr. Chairman with the clarification
of consistent with the conversation between staff and
the commission as a part of this proceeding. Alright
we've got a motion 2nd 2nd. A motion and a second.
All in favor say, aye, aye. None opposed motion passes
barksdale smelts. Thank you gentlemen very much. And
all, all the staff have been working on this, y'all
to thread. A very difficult needle, nicely done.
And your kid. I presume we know we know who does the
work in the smeltz household.
All right, next item please. Um I'm not sure we have
any other items. Alright, well, number 12, I've got
discussion and possible action on
uh state and federal legislation etcetera, etcetera
(item:12:Discussion regarding implementation of legislation) Uh recently I received a letter from Dad lavar who
chairs the public Utah Public Service commission uh
on behalf of the body of state regulators for the Western
energy imbalance market and in his role um in that
group. And we the puc were invited to designate one
of our commissioners as representative to the body
of state regulators for Western energy imbalance market
Given uh El paso Electric's agreement to join that
market, which obviously falls under El paso is our
jurisdiction. Uh So happy to open up for discussion
but I would submit Commissioner Glotfelty would be
perfect for that role. Um No, he looking for one more
thing to do in addition to writing memos lengthy memos
Right.
Uh So happy to hear thoughts or otherwise entertain
a motion to designate. I happily make that motion.
But absolutely, I think I have my hands full with myself
I don't know. This is a great opportunity just to talk
about jimmy.
All right, so what do we have a motion to designate
jimmy Glotfelty as a PUC Representative body of state
regulators for the Western balance energy market. All
in favor, say aye, aye. Not opposed motion passes,
Congratulations. Mr Glotfelty
Uh item 13 I don't have anything. So at this point
we will be moving into closed session. So, having convened
in a duly noticed open meeting commission will now
at 10 24 AM on september 29th 2020. To hold the closed
session, pursuant to chapter 551 texas, government
code, section 551.71 at 1.74 and 5 to 1.76. We'll be
back in a bit.
Mhm.
All right.
Closed session is hereby concluded at 10 31 am on september
29th 2022. The commission will now resume its public
meeting after meeting in closed session. Having uh
relevant discussions. Will ask for a motion to authorize
our lawyers to petition the U. S. Supreme Court for
review of the Fifth Circuit's decision in next era
of the puc case number 20-50160. Do we have such a
motion?
Motion second all in favor say, aye, aye. None opposed
motion passes. Thank you all very much. At this point
we have no further business before the commission.
So this meeting of the Public Utility Commission of
Texas is hereby adjourned. Thank you