This meeting of the public, excuse me, This meeting
of the Public Utility Commission of Texas will come
to order to consider matters that have been duly posted
by the secretary of State of Texas for november 3rd
2022. For the record, my name is Will McAdams and I'm
joined today by commissioners Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty
and Kathleen Jackson. Peter Lake, our chairman is unable
to attend today's meeting and he's out for personal
leave. At this time I'd entertain a motion to excuse
his absence.
2nd 2nd, all those in favor say aye, aye, none opposed.
Mr. Journeay, please walk us through the consent items for today.
Good morning commissioners, by individual ballot following
items were placed on your consent agenda: 2-5, 7
11 14 15 18 19 20 22 23 28 31 33 39. Thank
you. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to approve
the items just listed by Mr. Journeay, do I have a second?
I second. Thank you All those in favor say aye, those
opposed motion passes
Um items that will not be taken up today. We will not
be taking up items 12 and 30 um public comment. We
will begin oral comments related to a specific uh item
will be heard uh when that item is taken up. This is
for general comments only. When we get to oral comments
on specific items, stakeholders should not approach
the table unless oral comment has specifically been
granted or they have been invited by a commissioner.
Speakers will be limited to three minutes, Mr Journeay
Do we have anyone for public comment to speak today
No sir no one has signed up this morning. Okay
um items 2, 3, 4 and 5 have been consented. Um Next
up we'll take up item number six. Mr Journeay Will
you lay out this item. (item:6:53744) Item six is docket 53744, its a request
to paul and linda Royal for an appointment of a temporary
manager of the Lago vista Water system. uh proposal
for decision was filed on september 22nd and the ALJ
filed a correction memo on october 28th.
Okay this item is simple enough and in the spirit of
discussion I'd entertain entertain any thoughts on
this. Um At this time. Sure I believe that we should
adopt the PFD granting the dismissal of the Royals
petition without prejudice but modify the PFD uh to
dismiss the petition for muteness under 16 TAC 22.2
81 subsection D. Subsection 11 Because the temporary
manager has already been appointed by T. C. Q. The
rails asked for requested appointment of a temporary
manager from the commission T. C. Q. And the Attorney
General's Office. On September 1st, the TCQ issued
an order appointing a temporary manager for Lago vista
The TCQs appointment of a temporary manager renders
the Royals petition with the commission moot. Uh We
appreciate the petitioners um efforts that they have
made um to ensure that the Lago vista water system
continues to operate. They have personally volunteered
their time and money um to do so and um this the
petition is moved at this point given the TCQ
Um Issuance of a temporary manager and um we can move
forward as as such. Yeah pending in any other thoughts
I I agree TCQ has already taken action on this
so clear cut case of uh in in my view dismissal for
muteness with that I will entertain a motion to adopt
a P. F. Ds recommendation to dismiss the case but it
should be modified to reflect reflect dismissal on
muteness grounds rather than for failure to prosecute
go second. All those in favor. I all those opposed
motion passes
number seven has been consented this time will take
up item. Uh Well actually I don't have anything for
items eight or nine. Do any of you. Okay great. Um
if none will move on to item number 10 mr Journeay
will you lay this item out please? (item:10:52195) Item 10 is docket
52195. It's the application El paso electric company
to change rates. El paso electric filed a motion for
rehearing of your previous order. This one is this
one is unfortunate but I'd entertain any discussion
or thoughts on this right now. I I believe that we
should deny the motion for rehearing. We already approved
the settlement agreement is based on a black box agreement
and el paso has now filed these corrections to their
tariff and hasn't supported any provided any evidence
to support the changes. And at this time I think that
the best move would be to just deny the motion. I know
you have got some thoughts on black box agreement. Yeah, I love
black box agreements especially because we can't see
what's in them and that includes the positive nature
and the negative nature. So I think that uh in the
spirit of my black box memo that I know never filed
but um I would agree with Commissioner Cobos and deny
the request and and that's why I believe this is somewhat
unfortunate. Um I believe were somewhat constrained
here. The parties knew what they were signing on to
um frankly they had more visibility than we did. Uh
so we have to go on the information that is in the
record and and that's what our decision on approval
was based upon. So I concur with my colleagues. Mr
Jackson, I agree as well. Okay great. Um at this time
I will entertain a motion to uh uh deny El Paso Electric's
motion for rehearing, do I have a second? All those
in favor say aye, those opposed motion passes
Number 11 was consented.
Number 12 Mr Journeay will you please lay out we're
not taking up, I'm sorry, we're not taking up number
12 good catch. Um number 13 Mr Journeay Will you lay
out this item. (item:13:52715) Item 13 is docket 52715, it's the application
of Denton Municipal Electric to change rates for wholesale
transmission service. Denton filed an appeal of SOAH
order number five that set interim rates. There's a
couple of issues at play here. Um Certainly of significance
and welcome any thoughts
I can go first again. Um So I believe that we should
deny the appeal in part regarding the commission's
authority to set the commission does have authority
to set interim rates for municipal owned utility um
trying hotel rates and granted in part because Denton
appeal of SOAH order number five, setting the interim
rates due to the fact that the ALJ didn't follow the
commission's procedural rules with respect to the commission's
authority to set interim rates for M. O. U. S. And
T. Cost cases. Um PURA 35.004 subsection D
Provides the commission with the authority to set wholesale
rates and based on this authority, there is a implied
authority that the commission's um ability to set permanent
rates um provide the commission with implied authority
to set interim or temporary rates. And there is some
case law to support the commission's position on on
this issue um namely PUC versus corpus Christi. And
the PUC has relied on this court case in the past to
set interim rates in um in rate cases. So I believe
that we today we we find that um we do have the
authority to set interest rates in this case. However
based on the commission's procedural roles um didn't
do not, the ALJ did not provide notice and opportunity
for hearing. Um in the order that was issued, there
wasn't um, you know, any kind of language that said
that if you wanted to request a hearing that you can
do so by a certain deadline. And so even though it
didn't, and the parties have had an opportunity to
file briefs and provide all argument which would essentially
be happening again at this hearing. They haven't received
that notice, an opportunity for an actual hearing that
our procedural rules require. And so, um I would um
I guess uh grant the appeal in that respect. So, but
it would be a uh there would be a limiting fact on
the granting of the appeal. Is is that what I'm hearing
you're saying uh pertaining to SOAH taking it up providing
notice and and hearing under our procedural rules?
Yes, I agree with that. I believe this is an important
decision in terms of our affirmation that we have the
ability to set wholesale rates for municipal utilities
um uh to to do anything otherwise would be a significant
uh limiting policy change on the commission. And uh
you know, I just don't believe we can we can do that
especially at this time um when we're trying to make
all utilities in the ERCOT and system and in the state
uh, work together for reliability and to ensure reliability
long term. Any other thoughts. Yeah, I would just add
that obviously this has gone back for some time. We've
had this in front of us for a little while. Uh Denton's
last t cost rate was approved in 2005. Staff thinks
they're overturning on that space. So clearly I think
we I you know, support the staff's effort to try to
get them in when we can get them in without these with
these challenges, interim rights are absolutely appropriate
in my opinion. And um one positive that I think should
be cited for the record is that we will be subject
to a trip once the final rates go in. So the company
will not lose anything that it's afforded and the customers
will not be overcharged or undercharged uh during that
period. So, so we'll know that uh the rights will be
um just and reasonable when that happens
at this time. I'll entertain a motion to grant the
appeal of order number five with instruction to O.
P. D. M. To prepare an order consistent with our discussion
at the Dais. I would modify the motion to um to deny
the appeal in part um with respect to finding that
the commission has the authority to set interim rates
in wholesale uh service rate cases for municipally
owned utilities and granted in part with respect to
the fact that the ALJ didn't follow the commission's
procedural rule. And I think that works too in terms
of the mechanics uh message sent. So I have a motion
Yeah, I believe that's right. I have a motion. Do I
have a second? All those in favor say, aye, aye. All
those opposed motion passes,
number 14. Number 15 were consented. Uh number 16,
docket number 53354. Mr Will you please lay that out
for us? (item:16:53354) Item 16 is docket 53354, It's a tariff filing
for TMP related to a change in deployed meter
technology uh that was approved by the commission of
previous document proposed order was filed on july
11th. Okay, this is a single issue um proceeding. Uh
so let's talk about what constitutes a standard meter
Any thoughts?
Well, it is an unfortunate situation. Right? TMPs
meters, the advanced meters that they have in place
or had in place. Um We're I guess Based on AT&T Service
three G. Service that ATT canceled. And so um they're
in the process of replacing those meters and their
existing vendor Itron um is having supply chain issues
and so we're not really sure what meters have been
replaced and which ones still need to be replaced but
um, TMP seeking a tariff revision um so that they can
basically use certain charges to charge for the standard
meters and standard meters are advanced meters under
the definition and the rules um and apply these these
fees that they basically want to use for. They want
to use lower priority blue band and reconnect fees to
charge the customers for standard meters um across
the board, uh there's some confusion between standard
meters and nonstandard meters and nonstandard meters
are obviously not AMS meters. Um I think the best thing
to do here is to um deny the tariff filing because
essentially we just can't cut and paste fees from one
area of our tariff and apply them to um standard meters
Uh cut and paste fees from one section of our tariff
that apply to standard meters and apply them across
the board as nonstandard meters. And so I think the
cleanest thing to do here is to deny the revision and
let them continue to charge the customers for standard
meters, which are lower fees anyway. But um you know
TMP is continuing to file progress reports on, you
know, in a separate project on their replacement of
the 3 AT&T 3G meters. And we need to make
sure we keep track of that and the next time that
TMP comes in for a D C R. F or rate case
we need to be cognizant of the fact that um they may
be charging for standard meters when the customer may
not have an advanced meter. Standard meter equals advanced
meter. And those customers may not have an advanced
meter at this time because we just don't know where
they're at in terms of replacing meters. I know from
my view, look there was two years notice lead time
given to the utility by the network provider by A.
T and T. So um for especially for other utilities,
this will continue to happen. Um telecommunications
technology will continue to evolve. Uh service for
advanced meters will continue to evolve and thus make
uh advanced meters obsolete at certain points to where
they cannot meet the definition theoretically of a
standard meter, which is an advanced meter. And so
you have to stay ahead of this and you have to develop
plans to stay ahead of this. And I think that's the
central point behind. Again, we are somewhat limited
in what actions we can take. This is certainly the
simplest approach just to blanket deny this at this
time. Um but for everyone else, you've got to stay
ahead of this and you've got to develop plans and update
the commission on what your plans are uh if you seek
to recover um under this framework and I agree with
you commissioner. Any other thoughts? I mean we're
sympathetic to supply chain issues. But I think to
your point that um you know, they had advanced notice
you know, you have to be proactive and plan ahead of
time and this just seems like a discombobulated way
of trying to um recoup fees for for these meters after
the fact. Yes. Well I think another point is um what
is kind of like that demarcation because I mean what's
really the issue and the and causing the the problem
is the telecommunication telecommunication linkage
not necessarily the meter itself, but the ability for
the 3G System that no longer operates the
network, the network. And as I think as you pointed
out there was ample opportunity and you know, not just
this utility but people across that whole service area
were made aware um you know, well before the time that
they needed to maybe potentially take action. So I
think kind of going forward and in this case as well
we need to make that delineation between the actual
meters themselves and what their capability is versus
the ability to connect, connect to it. And I think
you know in my mind that connectivity piece of it really
kind of falls to utilities and they need to be forward
thinking. One other point sir we talked about that
that might be helpful of besides the point that the
commissioner Jackson just made that the meter, the
character of the meter hasn't changed. The communications
part of the advanced metering system is what has has
gone but also non standard metering is a service customers
need to request and none of these customers have requested
non standard meter service Well and then t and I mean
TMP can also refile his request for tariff provisions
when it's updated its information uh in a new docket
can it not?
I don't know if they get these meters but then I don't
know that you need to follow tariff revision but in
that communication piece both you are talking about
I mean it's required as one of the AMS functionality
there so you the communication piece um that's critical
to this point um has to be there for it to be
an advanced meter. Well the definition advanced meter
service and the rule includes communications as part
of that system. Yes, well and we're gonna be relying
more heavily. Look bottom line is this commission has
for years and especially now has high hopes for the
capabilities of so called advanced meters and we need
their capabilities to be augmented and increased as
new technologies become available um but as old technologies
make the system's obsolete temporarily we need utilities
to develop plans to stay ahead of the curve, we've
got to stay ahead of this um and I think that's the
central point of our decision here uh with that I will
entertain a motion a motion to deny TNPs request
for tariff adjustments for the reasons stated at the
dais. So moved. Do we have a 2nd 2nd, all those in
favor say aye, I all those opposed motion passes. Next
item is item number 17, docket number
yep, docket number 5377 mr Journeay please lay out
(item:17:53377) Item 17 is docket 53377. Its complaint of ENGIE
energy marketing and Viridity Energy against ERCOT
you have two items posted under this uh item number
one is a preliminary order. Uh The second is commission
staff filed an appeal of order number 17. Yeah. And
and before the discovery issue I would recommend and
that's what I propose. We take up first the draft preliminary
order. Um Is there any discussion on the DPO
as it stands? Um If not, I will entertain a motion
to approve the draft uh preliminary order. A 2nd 2nd
All those in favor say aye, I all those opposed that
passes. Um And now on the discovery matter, I would
like to hear your thoughts uh this this is not a clear
cut cut and dry um And an issue and I'll admit I
was a bit out of my depth on this. Um I am
not an attorney um but I have attempted to act like
one. any thoughts I think that just leaves me. Right
Okay, so nice, nice backing into it. Commissioner McAdams
um Well, I believe that we should grant the appeal
in part and denied in part and the granting grant staffs
appeal in part because ENGIEs commission for deposition
was to depose the commission or commission staff and
uh the commission can't be deposed. Um you know, given
our quasi judicial um role in this matter and commission
staff. Um Well that's that's a very broad term that
could be anybody in any division. And um you know,
commission staff is not an entity that um has to designate
a representative to be deposed. They're not like corporation
So um the commission has the commission for a deposition
as written. Um I think we we can't grant that, we should
grant staff's appeal on on that um as written. I don't
think we can move forward with with allowing ENGIE
to depose the commission and commission staff. Uh The
denial in part would be because staff's request for
um protective order is too broad and um that's that's
where I land. And Stephen you're making some interesting
faces. So I'm wondering if I'm saying something. Okay
okay. Um Alright, so um denying staff's appeal in part
because commission staff's request for a protective
order was true broad. They're basically saying you
can't oppose the commission um or the commission staff
And ultimately um if um N. G. Were to request to depose
specific commission staff by name, as fact witnesses
um even if they could ultimately do that and the protective
order. Um I think as requested is just too broad. Yes
Okay. Uh Welcome any other thoughts high level. I believe
that we should attempt where possible to discourage
uh blanket fishing expeditions um to where parties
have to have some type of reasonable knowledge on who
is informed on the matters related to the case. And
so um I agree with you commissioner. I I believe the
request for a protective order just on a blanket basis
is too broad. Um However, it's incumbent upon the uh
the appealing or petitioning party to know who they
want to hear um factual information from the subject
matter, expert related to the case. And so um I support
the nuance of your approval in part and rejection in
part any other thoughts.
I followed the lead of our lawyer.
So given the mechanics of this and what we've addressed
which we've addressed the high level issues uh some
of the others we have not addressed. Um I believe we
can and should entertain a motion to grant in part
and denying part staffs appeal consistent with the
discussion from the dais. So do I have a 2nd 2nd? All
those in favor say aye all those opposed motion passes
Numbers 18 19 agenda items 18 19 and 20 were consented
Uh Number 21 is docket number 53691. Mr Journeay will
you laid out this item. (item:21:53691) Item 21 is docket 53691. It's
an agreed reported violation relating to commission
staff's investigation of step concerning violations
of the uh PURA Commission rules in ERCOT protocols
A revised proposed order was filed on july 19th. Okay
Um the foremost issue is should the commission approve
the proposed order uh have any thoughts? Yes but adding
back conclusion of law number eight to state that stack
violated. PURA and the commission's rules as a basis
for the administrative penalty assessed in the proposed
order. So I support that on the basis of consistency
um that we have done this previously under docket number
53492 Jaxa. And um I just want to make sure that the
commission is currently composed is consistent policy
application approach so I agree with the commissioner
any other views. Um well with that, I would entertain
a motion to approve the proposed order with modification
consistent with our discussion.
You have a second. Uh that's time all in favor say
aye. All those opposed motion passes number 22 has
been consented. # 23 has been consented. Uh This time
docket number item number 24. docket number 54225.
Mr Journeay will you lay out this item. (item:24: 54225) Item 24 is docket
54225. It's an investigation of Texas Excel Property
Management Corporation for violations of PURA and Commission
Rules. Commission staff filed a motion to open a formal
investigation. Uh barksdale, would you please approach
At this time I would request that you discuss this
further. Where is this headed? Good morning Commissioners
Uh This is Barkdale English on behind the commission's
I'm sorry
good morning commissioners. This is barksdale english
on behalf of commission staff. Thank you. Commissioner
McAdams this is a strange one. Um we don't typically
have to come to you to seek permission to open a formal
investigation and the reason why we're having to do
this today is because over the last year we have tried
unsuccessfully to reach out to Texas Excel property
management company through our normal and formal investigative
process requesting information, things like their current
lease is uh, the arrangements that they have with the
retail electric provider. And up until sunday night
actually, we had not really had any substantive conversation
So I'm pleased that the filing of this motion to open
a formal investigation has gotten their attention and
they have started to provide some information, but
it's incomplete to the requests that we've been asking
It's also serving a little bit as a notice to the public
at large that there seems to be, um, a business model
that might be taking root in the state where property
management companies that are leasing out either single
family homes or apartment units that are separately
metered are requiring their tenants to use the retail
electric provider that the property management company
selects for them on its face. It might seem like a
good deal to the tenant because they can move in without
having to deal with the rep having to get their electricity
turned on set up. All that stuff kind of might seem
to minimize the administrative hassle on their end
However, doing so violates two extremely important
tenets of our market. The first is that every customer
every retail customer in a competitive choice area
is granted by statute, the right to choose their own
providers so that they can get the services that they
want at the price that they need. The second is that
um when they don't choose, don't have the ability to
choose their retail electric provider, They're not
considered the customer record um to the rep and that
systematically um prevents them from accessing any
of our customer protection rules. And so you can imagine
a situation where a tenant in one of these apartment
buildings has their power turned off without any advance
notice for reasons that they don't understand and not
being able to do anything to remedy that situation
prior to having their power shut off. That's just one
example of of how not being the customer of record
is a is a bad deal for our retail customers in their
power region. So we're here before you asking to open
a formal investigation so that we have a little bit
more kind of authority, both from a legal standpoint
as well as from a public perception standpoint to encourage
and then if not successful, compel Texas excel property
management company to respond to our request for information
and participate in this investigation or face the consequences
of having a formal report on a violation be brought
before you
many times
seems like the right thing to do. We've got these folks
uh we have to protect the public in the sense and clearly
if they're not even able to access our customer protection
rules. Um you know, I mean we have to give them that
opportunity and um you know, I think Barksdale as
you said that perhaps this is a new area that that
we might need to see um if there are challenges in
this space going forward, if this is a new um problem
that we must look at, maybe the legislature acts, maybe
we, you know, change our, modify our rules, but clearly
you can't violate PURA by just telling people they
don't have a choice. That's that's a misinterpretation
of our rules and our laws of the state. So I'm full
support of uh doing the investigation and and making
it clear that if they are doing what they perhaps maybe
doing it is unfair to consumers and violates our law
and nobody else should do it either. Yeah, I mean,
in my view, I think there's protections for all parties
by initiating a formal uh enforcement um proceeding
simply because we have an interest in trying to address
situations offline, but when they have broad reaching
policy impacts as described by barksdale, um we need
the transparency of a formal process and proceeding
an investigation and that that benefits everyone consumers
as well as, you know, the property management company
um because they they have the protections of law and
PUC substance of rules um that govern that. So, uh
no, I I believe this is the best approach forward.
Absolutely agree and appreciate you coming to us for
this request and we need to make sure that um customers
are protected and that um you know, these companies
that are these everyone is following the law. And so
I'm fully supportive you moving forward with your formal
investigation. I think two good points here made first
of all, the formal investigation as you stated will
provide facts on for both parties, both sides of the
of the coin, so to speak. Um and then also kind of
moving forward, it will give us an idea of if there
are, you know, other vulnerabilities out there that
we need to address and if there's anything um that
we need to do in our rules or or otherwise again to
prevent the same thing from, you know, continuing to
happen. Well, thank you for bringing this forward.
If I could just address 1 other thing with comments
from you, Commissioner Glotfelty new Commissioner Jackson
about whether our rules and your statute might be sufficient
at this time. I'm happy to say that we do have. Well
I'm not happy to say that we have three other investigations
but I do um happily report that that our rules have
been sufficient enough to encourage those other entities
to work with us. And so at this time we're not making
any recommendations about rule changes or statute changes
because we think the authorities there. Okay, um at
this time I will entertain a motion to grant staff's
motion to open a formal investigation. Do I have a
2nd 2nd. All those in favor say, aye, I all those opposed
motion passes, Thank you very much. uh at this time
I don't have anything on items 25 through 31. Do any
of you Good. Um at this time, happy to take up item
number 32 Project number 53911. Mr Journeay please
lay that out for us. (item:32:53911) Item 32 is project 53911 aggregate
distributed Energy Resources. ERCOT Pilot Project Commission
staff has filed two items under this item. The first
is a memo and proposed registration form for the aggregated
distributed energy resources. The second is a memo
with ERCOT governing document for the aggregated distributed
energy resources, ERCOT pilot project. Well, I'm happy
to sit in the chair with the gavel on this day, it's
been a long time coming, but frankly a short time coming
Um a massive amount of work has gone on in a short
amount of time by some dedicated stakeholders and ERCOT
staff uh ERCOT board of directors has thoroughly reviewed
it, considered the policy implications, the reliability
implications um and the framework is, is clearly established
to safely reliably um initiate this uh this pilot which
will have the benefit of allowing us to experiment
um and and pursue a policy approach which was initiated
I believe when Senate Bill seven was passed uh and
deregulation was contemplated uh within ERCOT
and that overarching policy principle was to put consumers
more in control of their energy future and uh this
certainly allows them to do that through both the Load
side and potentially the resource side now, um we've
got a lot to find out, we're going to take it slow
As Chairman Lake has repeatedly pointed out throughout
this process, we are not going to jeopardize system
reliability, uh the intended effect um from some of
us who were there from the beginning in terms of forming
our thoughts and policy on this were to enhance reliability
and the resiliency of the overall system and that's
what we hope to achieve. Um I'd like to thank Commissioner
Glotfelty for being there every step of the way for
this and providing me the encouragement to keep at
it and and thus um keep our attention fixed to the
pilot task force who has worked so hard to develop
the foundational rules of of the project. Um Commissioner
do you have any thoughts? I'm just happy that we get
to approve this again, but approving what the ERCOT
board has already approved, I think they did. I think
the the staff has done a great job, I think the stakeholders
have done a great job. I think your leadership is exceptional
in this, I think that um this puts us in a driver's
seat of leading again, leading in this area. We're
gonna learn a lot from this. Um This in my opinion
I hope we learn enough that this avenue grows um but
we'll take that step as it comes and get that information
and make sure our system remains reliable. Um and that
we continue to look for ways to provide choices to
consumers and new types of power plants that will help
the system both in cost and reliability. So I'm excited
to to support the effort. Well I want to thank you
Commissioner McAdams and Commissioner Glotfelty for
your leadership on this very important effort. Um This
is a great day today to be able to continue to move
this A. D. R. Um process forward and um I also want
to thank the PUC staff and the task force that were
involved in helping you guys come to this um important
place I think like like both of you have said we have
a lot to learn and um and I do think that ultimately
learning what will enhance and improve reliability
on the demand side of the reliability equation is extremely
important and what ERCOT does best is lead lead through
innovation and technological innovation were progressive
market and I think this step shows that we are continuing
to push forward um and leading in the United States
on progressive technical innovation um market initiatives
and I'm excited to see where this goes
well. I think an exciting time and certainly a pilot
is a great achievement but in some ways it's just the
beginning right and it's gonna be important kind of
moving forward that we get thoughts and ideas and we
get engagement um, by, by the consumer and that uh
collaboratively, we all kind of work together in the
analysis again, keeping that, you know, North Star
true as I think Peter Lake always says in terms of
reliability, being, being first and foremost and number
one, uh, we know, I think in Texas that it's not one
big answer, it's a lot of little answers and that we
want to be innovative, we're gonna be collaborative
And I think, you know, one of the things that kind
of strikes me about this particular part of the solution
is the engagement of the individual because when the
individual engages and understands then they become
supportive and then whether it is energy efficiency
energy conservation, all the various things that we
know we need kind of moving forward, they become more
engaged in the process. So to me this is this is very
exciting. I also appreciate the leadership of everyone
on the commission and also the commission staff and
ERCOT that's worked on this and really look forward
to seeing the outcomes and the opportunities and as
we move forward. So 11 other thing that I want to say
is uh, if you recall when we got started um, ERCOT
and this is Kenan we uh, this was originally a, we
can't do anything beyond 10 megawatts uh statewide
and um, what it shows to me is that we're conservative
in the way we think about how we ensure reliability
in the state, but we can work together and realize
if that's the right amount or the right um, uh, process
to get to the amount we, we've expanded that to 80
megawatts, it's different areas, keep that 10 Megawatt
um limit, but I think that's great. That wouldn't have
happened if we just threw it out there and said we
were gonna do this and it's the collaboration that
made it happen and that's where I'm really proud that
uh, that, that everybody got in the room, everybody
was expeditious about this great leadership. Um they
listened to ERCOT on the reliability function and they
sought ways to accommodate both sides of that equation
and I think they've come to a great solution, this
was a victory for the stakeholder process all the way
around from the commission to ERCOT staff to the industry
stakeholders, to the average everyday consumers who
were able to are able to participate and it's just
one of, of a framework, energy efficiency and others
to come that are going to be moving forward at both
the commission and ERCOT um and within a dynamic industry
that is evolving every day. So yeah, this, this is
gonna be fun to watch, big things, have small beginnings
and uh, I think this is gonna be a big thing one
day um, members pending any other comments, I would
gladly entertain a motion to approve the governing
document and registration form
have a second. All those in favor say aye I all those
opposed motion passes item number 33 has been consented
um Okay I do not have anything on items 34 through
36 do any of you
um Now at this time we have an update from ERCOT on
the Brazos bankruptcy proceeding um chad would you
like to come up and please give us that uh whatever
the latest update is
Until now we're on night of 37
Okay yeah I'm 37 steven you need to lay that out Oh
so long legally I just well yeah, it's out of 37 is
um stuff about ERCOT Okay, now chad you may lay out
your update. (item:37:Update from ERCOT) Good morning commissioners chad Seeley
ERCOT general counsel and with me to the right is sean
taylor ERCOT Chief financial Officer. We wanted to
discuss the Brazos adversary proceeding and the ERCOT
settlement that is part of the Brazos bankruptcy plan
that we that will be presented to the court on november
14th as part of the confirmation hearing. So yesterday
I filed a letter along with a 15 slide presentation
and two projects for the commission. We also electronically
submitted to each of your offices. This presentation
is also located on ERCOT website under the dedicated
ERCOT web page dealing with the Brazos settlement
we've been very transparent with the market coming
out of mediation in mid september about the framework
around this ERCOT settlement regarding this adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court,
So you have the presentation in front of you were happy
to go through each slide to make sure the commission
understands the settlement framework. We've obviously
been coordinating with the commission from day one
when this bankruptcy was filed, which was March 1st
of 2021 so here we are, you know, 18 months later.
Now, coming to the end of the bankruptcy proceeding
with that confirmation hearing on november 14th, we've
been coordinating with your counsel, the Attorney General's
Office every step of the way to make sure that this
ERCOT settlement reflects the objectives that the commission
desires and that frankly the wholesale market needs
to ensure that entities don't avail themselves of adversary
proceedings in the bankruptcy court and not pay ERCOT
invoices and we believe we've achieved all those objectives
with this ERCOT settlement framework. We also believe
that the statutory objectives coming out of the last
legislative session have been achieved as well. Um
I do think it's important to highlight a couple of
the settlement framework so that the commission has
a full appreciation, of course, we're here today to
answer any questions that you may have as we move forward
with closing out this issue. Hopefully in front of
the bankruptcy court on November 14. So with that,
I'll turn to the presentation
So again, Brazos filed bankruptcy, March 1st 2021
after winter storm Uri, ERCOT filed a proof of claim
in the bankruptcy court for approximately $1.9 billion
Those were the unpaid settlement voices dealing with
the charges coming out of the winter storm as we move
forward in litigation in the bankruptcy court, there
was a lot of discovery expert witnesses and we actually
began trial in february of this year and trial went
for about a week and a half with both sides offering
uh their witnesses in front of the court, about a week
and a half into the preceding. The bankruptcy judge
really encourage the parties to go to mediation. And
the reason why the judge was encouraging the parties
to go to mediation is that the judge recognized the
complexity of this issue, a cooperative being in bankruptcy
court, the interest of ERCOT and the state, we're trying
to recover $1.9 billion dollars and where he was likely
headed with the outcome in those decisions. And so
we stood back. Both parties agreed to go to mediation
and for about six months we were in mediation, working
on the framework of the settlement that's presented
to the court. When ERCOT decided to go to mediation
they wanted to ensure that it was going to achieve
the Legislature and the commission's overall objectives
and protecting the competitive wholesale market and
then the last legislative session, PURA 39.160 was
added that dealt with the impacts of a defaulting market
participant. And so we were very cognizant of the legislature's
decision to put that framework in place and the relationship
between ERCOT and the commission when we have a defaulting
entity. But in the world of bankruptcy, when you're
going through a restructuring and you come out of a
restructuring, you're not in default. So when you look
at that provision in 39.160 it talks about the actions
that ERCOT must take and that the commission must take
It's premised on the fact that there is in fact a default
and when you're in bankruptcy court going through again
a reorganization that we hope will be confirmed a mid
november, Brazos will not be in default. But we took
that framework that the legislature wanted and use
that as part of our objectives in the mediation and
we believe we've accomplished what the legislature
wanted with that framework which is ultimately when
Brazos is reorganized and transitions after this bankruptcy
they will no longer have generation and they will no
longer schedule Load they will be a pure transmission
and distribution cooperative. Once this transition
occurs
some other key features as part of the mediation principles
When we stepped into mediation was to ensure that there
would be no default uplift to the rest of the market
Brazos is needed to pay for the invoices And the
charges that it incurred during Winter Storm Uri.
And so that was a fundamental economic principle that
we took into mediation that the rest of the market
would not be uplifted the 1.9 billion that was due
But we also recognize that, you know, is needed to
play pay its invoices and that the market needed to
recover the 1.9 billion. And so we had to consider
settlement options in which every participant through
ERCOT would have an option to decide how it wanted
to get its money back based on the time and value of
that money ultimately 100%. If a mark participant wanted
to achieve that recovery was on the table and we were
not going to give that up. The more participants wanted
to elect to get money back faster that they would have
to take a discount. And so we knew we had to incorporate
that framework into the mediation and in order for
the mediator to come up with a feasibility plan for
Brazos to exit the bankruptcy. And of course it's
not just about ERCOT $1.9 billion claim against Brazos. Brazos has
hundreds of millions of others claims from creditors
as part of this bankruptcy. And when you go through
a reorganization, you're dealing with all the creditors
and how to resolve all those issues. So the mediation
had the overlay of all the creditors having to figure
out what is the best approach for Brazos to exit.
During winter storm Uri the commission authorized
us to use 800 million as part of the crr funds To
pay the market for the extraordinary costs that came
out of Winter Storm Uri. And we did that, the amount
that was associated with Brazos's short pay was approximately
600 million. So the 1.9 billion, that is the proof
of claim. Approximately 600 million of that is earmarked
tied to the crr funds that we used pursuant to the
commission's direction during that time. And so we
knew that was an important consideration going into
mediation, that we need to get that money Back and
put it back into its place where it needed to go. Which
is a combination of what securitization sub chapter
M was about to help replenish the crr funds give liquidity
to the market. But we wanted to get that 600 million
back as soon as we could. And so that was an important
consideration as far as the immediate recovery of getting
that 600 million back on in a timely fashion. And then
there were other litigation issues that we had to consider
the risk of ERCOT being in bankruptcy and how to resolve
that mediation. There's at the time of the event, ERCOT
had approximately 350 million of collateral that Brazos
had for ERCOT And we applied that and distributed that
to the market through the adversary proceeding Bank
uh Brazos was alleging that those were fraudulent
transfers which is called the pre petition claim and
it was asserting that that was also a risk that we
had to take in consideration to try to resolve that
as part of the mediation as well. Those were the key
economic principles that we were considering going
into the mediation back in March of this year. On the
non economic side to achieve the legislature's objectives
coming out of the last session, we knew that could
not be the same entity going forward coming out of
this bankruptcy and that they should not be able to
schedule Load or generation and therefore create any
future potential risk into the wholesale market. And
so that was obviously just as important as the economic
principles that I talked about a few minutes ago, ensuring
that Brazos understood that its consequence of filing
bankruptcy had repercussions and that we could not
live with um are participant continued to move forward
as a counter party with ERCOT with the potential risk
for the wholesale market. And we also knew that part
of that meant having appropriate senior management
changes as well. So these were all the key fundamental
economic and non economic principles that ERCOT believed
it wanted to achieve when it went into mediation in
March and again that mediation took about six months
some of the Market participants were able to intervene
and participate in that mediation and provide value
again, working with the Commission, the Attorney General's
Office providing value and then ultimately Brazos
and the member co ops all part of that mediation to
try to come up with a resolution, so in august of this
year, the mediator gave the party's kind of the last
proposal to see if we could work this deal out and
we were ultimately able to work out a settlement than
it is now incorporated as part of the Brazos plan
So what is that overview? Again, it's very consistent
with what the initial principles were that ERCOT stepped
into mediation back in back in March. The first thing
I wanted to focus on is the 600 million for the crr
funds that we drew on. ERCOT is going to get that money
back and we will apply it to pay down securitization
in bonds and we will replenish the remaining piece
of the CRR funds that is lacking to get us back to
the fully loaded amount that was there before we applied
at during Winter Storm Uri, I want to turn it over
to sean to see if he wants to add any more context
about our plan to move forward with applying it sub
chapter in bonds and the structure of what we were
able to do working with the commission when we went
through that proceeding with the Texas comptroller
Thanks chad when we issued the debt to identify yourself
for the record. Oh sorry sean taylor ERCOT Chief financial
Officer when we issued the debt to the comptroller
the $800 million to subchapter m one of the things
that we built into that agreement was the ability to
pay pre pay that debt or pay down that debt without
penalty during a period of time that is held by the
comptroller. We're looking at the first three years
in that case. What that allows us to do is to take
this money that we're going to get in from Brazos and
pay down approximately $375 million of that balance
which will then reduce the rates that the market participants
have to pay going forward. We'll be able to directly
apply that money and reduce those monthly charges that
they are currently receiving. The remaining $225 million
is the gap that is on ERCOT balance sheet right now
for the CRRs that we use that will fully replenish
those CRRs and ERCOT will be completely whole
Fortunately with the ability to get the $600 million
dollars in on the effective date of the plan that allows
us to do both of those things in the immediate future
Of course, as we move forward to apply those funds
to pay down the subchapter M bonds is a very public
process. We'll be talking to the board will be presenting
that information to the commission will be working
with commission staff on how we move forward with that
process which we anticipate early next year to do that
So once you take out the 600 million you're left with
what to do to the market participants. These are what
we call the eligible marked incidents that have a claim
through ERCOT as a result of Brazos short pay in the
market and that is approximately the 1.3 billion that's
left. I'm talking about slide five here if you're falling
along in the presentation um again, going back to the
settlement principles how to structure A way in which
mark participants had the option to get 100% recovery
on their claim or to take a discount if they wanted
to get that money back sooner rather than the time
frame that was being proposed. And so if you look at
slide six, we came up with four overall options for
the mark participants to elect and we just completed
the election process last week. I'll turn it over to
Sean to highlight the important features of all four
of these options that was presented to these eligible
market participants to go through and elect how they
wanted to receive their money. Go ahead. Thanks. And
as chad previously mentioned, we did want to give the
market participants that flexibility to choose among
these options. The first option, which is option one
which is the accelerated cash recovery option allows
for that discounted rate but to recover that money
in an accelerated manner, It allows for a 65% nominal
recovery of the amounts owed And it is in three components
The first is approximately 43%, which would be on the
effective date of the plan. The second is after the
sale of generation assets which has an outside date
of one year after the effective date of the plan, that's
approximately 9%. And then the last component is an
annual payment starting on the first anniversary of
effective date which is equal to 13% across 12 years
This timeline ties to the funding Proposal from Brazos
that is also in the plan which we'll discuss in a minute
But that is why this has these three separate components
The second option is the ability for them to recover
the full nominal amount and so that's a market participant
deferred recovery options. So that allows for 100%
recovery That's paid across 30 years and it's a little
bit weighted more heavily towards the last part of
those years. It's in three separate components. The
first five years are at a specific rate the middle
20 years or at a specific rate in the last five years
are at a higher, slightly higher rate of payment. The
third option was for those who have a smaller claim
to allow them a one time payment which would be 63%
of the amount owed. It would be 63% of the amount that
they of their claim capped at $63,000. So some $10,000
claim. So they had a claim greater than 10,000. They
could reduce that claim to $10,000 and collect $6300
as well as we'll see what the results. Option one and
option three were the ones that were the primary ones
selected by market participants. Option four was for
that greater level of flexibility which allowed the
market participants to select between both the accelerated
and deferred option one and option two and divide their
claim among those two options if it suited them best
And any market participant that did not select an option
was defaulted to the option to the deferred 30-year
recovery option as well. And we'll see the numbers
of those in a minute. How many that applied to A couple
of things before we turn into slide seven where Sean
talks about the primary funding, going again back to
option two, ERCOT did not want to make any election
choices for these eligible participants. It's their
money, they get to choose how they wanted to get paid
back in the time in which they wanted to get that paid
back. So it was critically important when we set up
the options here that every eligible participant could
get 100% of their claim back. And the time frame in
which option two is 30 years ultimately is faster than
our default uplift process. And the protocols. So let's
assume that Brazos did not pay the $1.3 billion 2.5
million a month. That's 30 million a year. That would
take 43 years to recover that for the entire market
And so with this framework, the eligibility to get
that back on a faster time frame is a benefit to those
market incidents if they so choose to seek 100% recovery
of their claim. And that was the framework in which
we set up this election notice process not knowing
how mark dissidents wanted to handle the time value
of money. And so they were given the option that if
everybody wanted to select option two And the full
1.3 billion was recognized that is still a faster time
frame than the default uplift process under our protocols
And if it was the full 1.9 of the claim, that would
have been over 60 years
On the next slide on slide seven. When we're talking
about the primary funding sources, as I mentioned before
these funding sources are linked to how that option
one recovery actually works. So there are three primary
funding sources that are identified. The first is a
little bit over 1.1, almost $1.2 billion 16 members
15 of them. Oh, Brazos money Of those three will be
paying with cash. The others will be securitizing through
Senate Bill 1580, there will be three separate security
plans for three separate securitizations which are
currently on schedule for the December January timeline
The second component is the generation asset sale.
They will be selling their three generation assets
of that sale. 100 and 16.6 is being allocated to this
market participant payment. And that recovery if for
some reason there's not enough money from that sale
then the current plan is for that. It is assumed to
be recovered any shortfall recovered by the rural utility
services. They are us they contingency uh X. A note
associated with this process. The last component is
the annual payment and that total $166 million. It's
about $13.8 million T&D. Operations from Brazos as
we move forward. All of this is also back stopped with
the T and D assets of Brazos. So if there's a failure
to pay then there's awesome the ability to use those
assets to fund these reducing the risk of failure payment
to market participants. Chad mentioned of that $1.15
billion 509.7 or approximately 600 million associated
with the crr monies will be going to pay down the subchapter
M bonds. That $375 million $225 million dollars of
crr funds. The rest of the amounts for all of these
will be allocated between the recovery options. So
for the accelerated recovery, the market participants
convenience cash recoveries, those lump payments, those
will be paid in accordance with the schedule on the
timeliness that we get these monies in from Brazos
The remaining amount is allocated to an escrow account
to pay that cash deferred recovery option across the
next 30 years. So all the money comes in and gets,
gets transferred out to market participants or gets
put into that escrow account, which is the joint escrow
account with Brazos and ERCOT
Ok, so Shawn's kind of walked through the economic
side on on slot eight, you know, again I highlighted
when we went into mediation, the non economic principles
and what we're trying to achieve and the settlement
encapsulates those non economic provisions and there
on slide eight again, Brazos will no longer be a
financial counter party with ERCOT ever again, that's
part of the plan. Once this transition completes again
they will only be a wires company going forward. Um
it will take some time to go through that transition
but in order to start to mitigate that potential risk
going forward as a counter party, we put features in
the ERCOT settlement on how they ultimately phase out
and the first one is that they will no longer act as
the qualified schedule, Anthony's scheduling the Load
by March of next year. And so they will have to find
a third party qualified and scheduling entity to handle
that scheduling Load and again, if you go back to the
beginning of the statutory framework, it's about the
commission's authority to stop scheduling Load So we're
achieving that objective through the transition browsers
will sell all the generation assets, Shawn's talked
about the economic side that will take a little bit
of time Brazos has retained its experts to start working
on that. Uh it could, you know, bleed into the end
of next year. We will allow them to continue to schedule
that generation, but there is a backstop in which they
have to get a qualified and scheduling to even schedule
that generation if somehow they're still retaining
those assets. Brazos does have a handful of power
purchase agreements. So and we have put backstop matches
in the plan as well on that those retained agreements
cannot be extended after a certain period and you cannot
increase the capacity materially and eventually those
those agreements will go away as well. And that a third
party will have to handle any type of scheduling associated
with those retained agreements. And then on slide nine
these are the changes in the senior management that
Brazos disagreed through, through the, through the mediation
Uh I think the last bullet point about going forward
as as Brazos reorganizes those limitations on who
can be in those leadership positions are part are all
part of the ERCOT settlement as well.
So on slide 10 you know, I indicated that we we went
through this election notice process that started in
September 20 and went for a month And in 755 election
notices were distributed to eligible market incidents
These are the entities that are due money from brasses
And going back to what Sean and I have talked about
the four options in which they selected on this election
notice. I'll turn it over to Sean to talk about the
table and what ultimately all this means. This is information
that will ultimately present to the court as part of
the confirmation hearing on November 14. Thanks chad
As you look at this table on this page as chad said
we took about a month to allow market participants
to respond to our request after we sent out the election
notice forms to them. And that ended on October 21
In this table across the top, you can see the count
of these election forms. Those counts as a percent
of total the dollars represented by those election
forms reaching that total of $1.3 billion and as I
mentioned before options one option three were the
most popular options. You can see we have the total
election notice in the first row. Then we have the
return notices by option and then the not return notices
So we got some received 747 155 notices back. So 98%
of the notices and that represented 99.95% of the dollars
Only 606 $100,000 was not returned in an election notice
option. The option one that accelerated option was
over half of the forms that we received back. And that
represented over 96% of the dollars that we're talking
about. The second most popular option. That option
three was over 40% of the respondents. And since that
is the smaller dollar amounts, that was only a little
over a million dollars. But those are people who will
be receiving the one time payment. We only received
34 notices back. So less than 5% for people who selected
the deferred option and that represented approximately
a third of a percent. So only $4.4 million option four
There were two people that selected the ability to
split the two people that selected. It did not split
their funds. So one of them was fully for the accelerated
option and that was almost the entire amount that's
represented here. The other selected the deferred option
fully. That was only for a little over $1500. So in
reality you take that 41 a half million dollars and
added to the option 11.2 billion plus the convenience
cash recovery option of a million dollars. And you
end up with over 99 a half percent of this being covered
by the accelerator of the convenience cash option from
a dollar perspective so there's about $5 million that
was in the bucket to be distributed over the 30 year
plan for that deferred option as chad mentioned we
will file the details of this with the court and what
that will be is that ERCOT recovery appendix, it will
show the summary of this information then by option
all the market participants who elected that option
and that payment schedule in the case of the accelerated
the payment schedule for those 12 years in the case
of the deferred for that 30 years in the case of the
comedians cash that one time payment So all of that
will serve as the record for when, when the payments
are due to market participants for up to 30 years from
ERCOT defining the dollar amounts by year that they
will receive as well as these other payment dates.
So slides 11 through 12 are what I call the additional
backstop features for the browsers bankruptcy plan
So we had the economic and non economic settlement
in early September and the market knew about that but
we weren't done Negotiating with Brazos on the backstop
features because this is the plan that has to operate
for 30 years and and beyond to ensure that the market
gets the money back consistent with the settlement
and so these were negotiations that occurred starting
in September after the first version of the plan was
officially filed with the court all the way up until
last week when Brazos on Thursday filed its amended
plan for the court, I'm not gonna go through each one
of them, but I did want to highlight on slide 11, the
last two points are critically important. So again
Brazos will ultimately transition to a wires company
So the issue of technology on the transmission and
distribution sides came up and how should that be managed
for example, batteries being used as a transmission
or distribution asset. And so we had to think through
that issue because we're talking about a plan that
operates forever for Brazos and so that that point
is raised here that it allows Brazos the flexibility
to use those assets for transmission or distribution
purposes, but those assets cannot be offered into the
wholesale market for energy or ancillary services.
And so it's complementary with the last bullet point
that there's very specific language that brad's shall
never own or operate generation assets or electric
energy storage facilities for the purposes offering
into the market. So this allows ERCOT from planning
purposes to look at, you know, as the Brazos area
grows to leverage technology that is useful on the
transmission distribution asset on the transmission
and distribution side. It doesn't hinder Brazos to
be able to perform its core wires company function
but it cannot offer those assets into the market depending
on where we evolve with our wholesale market over time
On slide 12 I talked about the two retained agreements
that impact the ERCOT region. There's another one over
in the maestro reason this this is the restrictions
on the retained agreements um critically important
is the distribution of T. D. Asset proceeds if there
is a default under the plan and I'll turn it over to
sean to talk about how this feature works, which is
really the fundamental backstop to ensure that the
market gets its money of somehow Brazos is not able
to pay under the structure that we talked about on
the previous slides and what this provides for is that
Brazos is prohibited from distributing the proceeds
from its T and D assets to anyone other than a valid
lien holder before fulfilling the obligations under
this plan to market participants and ensuring that
in the case of the deferred Since we're looking at
30 years that that is has enough cash balance and their
projected cash balances in there with the assets in
there and the investments to make sure that those payments
are fulfilled. And so that is the strongest backstop
that we have to make sure that the market participants
for the next 30 years will receive all of their money
And on slide 13 it's a more nuanced issue dealing with
what if one of the co op members under Brazos is a
defaulting member. I'm not gonna go into all the legalese
around that but we put in place a third party bankruptcy
monitor that will that will look at those pro practices
Present those information to the court, make sure that
ERCOT included and if those measures aren't being achieved
there are financial consequences to Brazos in order
to get into compliance. And so that was another important
feature that we had to work through over the last month
So where are we now
on friday? ERCOT did vote to approve the Brazos's
plan which includes the ERCOT settlement. Also on Friday
28 was the objection deadline for parties to file any
objections, although there were some objections with
the overall Brazos bankruptcy plan. There were no
specific objections on the ERCOT settlement piece which
is incorporated into the plan. And then as we've indicated
ERCOT will be going to the confirmation hearing uh
and sean taylor will be presenting evidence around
the election notice process that we're talking today
about in front of the court and we are hopeful that
the judge will confirm the Brazos bankruptcy plan
and that we can move forward with execution of that
plan based upon representations from Brazos and where
they are with their securitization framework with their
co op members. Uh they're anticipating securitizing
towards the end of the year or in january and at that
point we would receive that first major payment that
would again be distributed to Mark participants but
also the 600 million that would ultimately apply to
the CR funds and sub chapter M bonds.
The last slide is just a calendar that reflects kind
of where we've been and where we are. As we head toward
November 14, we're happy to answer any questions. Thank
you chad. Uh Just one question from from my seat um
in terms of ERCOT and and becoming whole in the aftermath
of Uri as it relates to the Brazos situation
Um just to confirm, the final decision will be made
by the bankruptcy judge in terms of executing the agreement
that has been negotiated, correct, correct. Um In terms
of replenishment of crr and sub chapter in pending
that approval. When does ERCOT staff hope to see execution
of those funds and and have CR are replenished. Is
that Q two Q three ultimately what is your target?
Know that? I think we're in that that 600 million in
that first payment. And so as soon as browse is able
to securitize and get the funding from the rest of
the co op members which they anticipate by the end
of the year or january and we will receive that payment
and be able to apply it to replenish the CR funds and
move forward with the sub chapter M bonds? That's
a little bit that takes a that's a multi step process
to to basically calling on the bonds and do a reallocation
will obviously be working with the commission on doing
that. But we'll be able to make the cr funds whole
almost immediately as soon as we get those funds and
then move forward with the sub chapter in on process
So sean do you want to speak to that piece that the
target is still for Q. One for the pay down of the
sub chapter and bonds assuming that we get the money
and in a timely enough manner to do so. There's chad's
that. It's a A series of events and includes notification
process and everything else that we have to comply
with. But our goal is still to do that in Q. one
Okay. Members. Any questions
I'd like to remind the commission? No action is necessary
at this time. Um We will uh discuss in executive session
other matters related to litigation. But this in my
opinion was a good and timely report. Uh bankruptcy
judge has away decision in front of them. It looks
like much work has been conducted by all parties going
into that decision and um thank you for the work you've
done and the detail you've been able to provide to
the public at this time. Thank you. Thank you.
Alright, um
Number 38 discussion discussion possible action regarding
implication of state and federal legislation. Uh I
don't have anything here for the remainder of the agenda
but we'll be going into closed session today. Does
anyone else have anything for the remainder of the
agenda. Okay. Number 39 was consented and we don't
have anything else um at this time having convened
a duly noticed open meeting, the commission will now
at 10 46 AM on november 3rd 2020 to hold a closed
session, pursuant to chapter 551 of the Texas, government
code section is 551 point oh 71. Section 551.74 and
551.76.
Okay.
Um
the closed session is hereby concluded at 11 04 am
on november 3rd 2022 the commission will resume its
public meeting after discussions in closed session
I will now entertain a motion to delegate authority
to Chairman Lake to write and an updated letter demonstrating
the commission's approval and support for ERCOT authority
to enter into the settlement and that we do not oppose
this settlement. Do I have a motion
all those in favor say, aye, aye. All those opposed
motion passes
there being no further business to come before the
commission. This meeting of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas is hereby adjourned