(inaudible)
(item:1: David Smeltzer, PUC Director of Rules and Projects Division, welcomes participants and lays out 1st session objective) Hello everyone. Welcome to the first of 3 sessions
or the, the first in a trilogy of Legislative
Implementation Workshops that we'll be hosting today.
Uh my name is David Smeltzer. I'm the Director of the
Rules and Projects Division here at the PUC. Uh joining
me up at the dias, Mackenzie Arthur and Rama Rastogi,
also from the Rules and Projects Division. Um the reason
we're having these workshops today is because uh you
know, the Legislature passed a great. You know, they
passed several dozen uh statutes that are going to
require rulemakings. And last Session, we had a similar
situation. Where we had a lot of rulemakings and a lot
of them had deadlines. To where they were basically
sequenced out for us. The Legislature determined what
the priorities were and we did them in the order in
which they directed. This Session, they have given us
more flexibility in determining what order we need
to pass the, you know, do rule makings. To implement the
various statutes that they passed. And as Staff is
working on its recommendations to the Commissioners
on how we should prioritize these rulemakings. We
have identified an initial set of rulemakings that
have either statutory deadlines or real world, you
know, effective deadlines based on need to get them
done quickly. But we wanted to give an opportunity
for stakeholder feedback and public feedback on, you
know, how we should prioritize the rest of these, the
rest of these you know implementations. And I think that ultimately
it will be up to the Commissioners to determine what
order we do these rules in. But in crafting Staff's
recommendation. We're very cognizant of the fact that
we don't run utilities and we don't necessarily experience
all of the situations that customers do out there.
And so we wanted to give everyone a chance to let us
know of any uh anything out there that we should know
and coming up with our rulemaking schedule. (item:1:David Smeltzer lays out housekeeping information) So a couple
of housekeeping first, I think that uh some questions
that we've gotten in advance already is what if I'm
unable to attend today in-person. And so this is being
broadcast on Texas Admin. And we did invite anyone to
file, file comments ahead of time if they needed to.
But if in watching this, anyone who's not able to attend.
Um notices something or has an idea for an efficiency
or whatever. We will be accepting written comments
in the project until close of business Friday. If anyone
has additional concise recommendations that they would
like to make. But I will say that it is much more
helpful if they're made in-person today. So that they
can be discussed by the group. Um the other, the other
question that we're getting is that we often get for
these. Is, you know, where the Commissioners um some
at these workshops. And the Commissioners have all expressed
to me excitement over this. They're very excited about
public feedback and I know that they're both watching
and will be briefed on what is discussed today. But
just as a, as a realistic concern. We found that people
are more comfortable telling me that I'm wrong. Than
coming in to tell the Chairman that she's wrong. And
so today, I invite everyone to tell me when we're wrong
about things because that's, that's really helpful.
Um in terms of how we will proceed today um with these
workshops. A lot of times we like to use a discussion
format. Which means if at any point on a topic you
would like to chime in, you know. It, it you know I, you don't need
to be invited. Just come on up to the, the front dias.
And we'll sort of call you in the, uh you know, the
order that you're here. And should there be multiple
topics under discussion. Sort of an informal protocol
that we use is. If you're, if you're wanting to discuss
something that is currently being discussed, you can
kind of hold up a one. But if you're just waiting to
talk about something different, you can sort of give
me the two. And then it's like ok we'll, we'll get
to you afterwards. Um, I think that the Legislative
focus this time by the Legislature was a lot heavier
in the electric and water spaces in terms of the number
of um, statutes that we've been given to implement.
But we wanted to make sure that we heard from all of
our industries. And so we're starting off with telecom.
And um we're eager to hear from you guys, if you have
any input on our implementations. (item:1:David Smeltzer lays out Staff's assestment on telecom rules) Um as far as we,
as far as in Staff's assessments. There were only three
items that required uh Legislative action. Um and they
were, they were listed in the memo, but I will.
Adrian, can you scroll down a little bit? So we think
these are the three bills, HB1597, SB1425 and
SB1710. And as you know, um we already were in
the process of doing a rule review of our telecom rules.
In which we accepted um written comments on potential
proposals to do rule changes. And as was indicated
in the memo, there are a couple, you know, there are
upwards of 20 plus rules that we're gonna be amending
as part of this uh telecom rule review. And so our
goal was as long as we're doing this, let's try and
knock out all of these rules as part of the Chapter
26 rule review. And so far that's we've been, we've
been drafting to that end. And so um of utmost interest
to us today. Is uh, you know, if any of these statutes
we think are complicated for reasons that may not be
obvious to us from our perspective and might merit
treatment in a separate rulemaking process. That's
valuable feedback. But also just any um implementation
uh, ideas that you have. And so, um I guess by order
of events. Um we'll sort of go, we'll just kind of
go down to the discussion topics in the, in the
in the memo. And so first I would say, is this
list complete? Have we, uh is there anyone who has
identified any additional um telecom related legislation
that needs to be implemented other than what we have
listed?
And again, if upon a review, you later learned that
we have failed to identify anything. You can always
reach out to us or, or file comments in the docket.
Okay. Well, that's good news.
Real quick. The only, the only one I can think of.
Oh, will you hop up. Just so that, just for the mic,
yeah.
And if you'll just identify yourself for knowledge.
(item:1:Daniel Gibson with TSTCI, question on mapping in conjunction with the Comptroller's Office) Yeah, I'm Daniel Gibson and I work with uh TSTCI.
The only thing I could think of. Is that there is the
project for doing the mapping in conjunction with the
Comptroller's Office. I don't think that requires any
rulemaking as far as this goes. But I didn't know if
that was something that could be talked about or not.
Or if we wanna do that later as we get closer to
looking at that, so. Yeah, I think that we agree that
we didn't have that peg to something that needed a
rulemaking. And, and uh that's not really the sort
of thing we're gonna talk about today. But I, I suspect
that we'll be finished before um, our allotted hour.
Based on the number of telecom topics. So we can, we
can discuss that a little bit.
Perfect. Yeah, if, if anyone's on the fence about
whether or not they want to bring something up. I would
encourage you to bring it up. So that we can make sure
that there's, you know, no gaps in our understanding.
Of what, what industry uh the public needs from the
Commission. Um, okay. So the list, the list is complete.
That's good. Uh is there any um, we also along with
this memo. Published a memo on the uh, the different
items that we're going to be including in our Chapter
24 rule review. And so if anyone has any additional
comments or questions on which items were going to
be included or not included. We would welcome any feedback
on that at this point.
Okay. Well I think that predictably, I think that telecom
was, was not a focus. I'm glad everyone's here. So
I'm just, I think at this point I'll just open it up.
And say, are there any Legislative items or questions
um, in the telecom space. That are of interest for discussion
today?
Okay. So, oh, yeah. Yeah. Come on up, come on up.
(item:1.4:Katherine K. Mudge with Mudge Law Firm, concerning VoIP) Good morning. I'm Katherine Mudge with law firm, the
Mudge Law Firm. Okay. And I do have one question and I, I
apologize for not having the Bill number. But the Governor
vetoed a Bill dealing with uh, VoIP. And uh part
of that provision was that basically that. Uh a SPCOA
holder or ACOA holder. Uh could utilize VoIP
for purposes of uh meeting the requirements of uh of
all the statute and the rules. And um he vetoed it.
Uh and his message was is basically, based on the,
the dialogue that was going on between about property
tax relief. And my question is, is that if in the next
in this special session. That Bill comes back up and
it passes, because it passed both uh houses or chambers.
Will the Staff, how will the Staff or have you thought
about how the Staff would handle that particular uh
statute? In the context of either this project or would
it require a separate project? So that's a good question.
(item:1.4:David Smeltzer's response and comments on rule implementation) And I will say that we had a lot of Bills to
review. So I, I you know we focused our attention
on the ones that we did have to implement. So uh I
think that's probably a logistical question. In terms
of, if we've already published. If we, if we've gotten
to the point to where we've published a proposal, then
we're sort of locked into the rules that we can amend.
And uh but I our, our goal would be to get as
many of these done in this project as possible. So
if time allows, we will make that. And so assuming
you're more familiar in the details of the Bill that
I might be. Do you, if it passes as it was before.
Is it a bill that you anticipate would be subject to
a lot of um interpretation? Or would it be a relatively
straightforward rule making in your opinion? (item:1.4:Katherine Mudge on rulemaking) From my
personal perspective, it's very straightforward. And
in fact it would, if anything. It would clarify the,
the interpretation of current statute. Perfect. So that, that
so that's really my. I, I just wanted to kind of get
in my head about how. If something happens during a
Special Session that applies. Whether it's telecom
or, or some other Bill. Uh that got vetoed during that
uh going back and forth. I, I just was trying to get
an idea of, of how we might want to ensure that um
those issues are handled in the context of this broader
rulemaking. Sure. That, that's a great thought.
(item:1.4:David Smeltzer's comments on comprehensive and extensive rule reviews.) And yeah especially for, for you know. I mean already
with the number of rules we're including in this project.
It is expanded beyond what we would have envisioned.
But um that is based on sunset recommendations, that's
the way they want us to be conducting our rule reviews.
They want them to be comprehensive and extensive. And
so that's the approach that we've taken. And especially
uh as you know, assuming that you are right that this
that it is not subject to a lot of interpretation when
we read it. That's exactly the sort of box that we
wanna get checked in this, this project. So if it's
logistically possible based on timing, um we would
include it. Would that be something though? And, and
I apologize for, for prolonging this discussion. But
would that be something that if it does happen? Would
and, and there are parties that are interested in ensuring
that the Commission Staff is not only aware of it.
But to figure out what we would do with it. Would we
file something in this project? Even though logistically
say, for example, the proposed telecom rules are already
out for publication? What would be your suggestion
let me ask you that? What would be your suggestion?
The um I have a great faith in uh Justin Brook. To
of our GR team, to let me to make sure that we
are have the situational awareness that it, that it
happened. (item:1.4:David Smeltzer on implementing that new Legislation) But if you do um uh. So I guess there's two, two, one
in the Chapter 26 rule review docket. I'm not I, I
would never be opposed to you filing something. Says
hey this, this new Legislation passed. Just
make sure, you know, and what would be particularly
helpful. Is if in implementing that Legislation, we
will have already proposed a certain number of rules.
And so if we have opened up the rule that is relevant
for other reasons. Then that might be something we
could consider including. And so uh if, if in the
filed comments. You would clarify which rules you think
are most affected by it, which maybe that's a simple
thing, maybe not. I just don't know the issue off hand.
Um that that would help us make the decision quicker.
That's great. Thank you so much.
Sure. (item:1.4:Jason Danowski for Foster, Danowski & Texas Cable Association on conforming changes to Rule 26.111) Good morning. Morning. Um Jason Danowski for Foster, Danowski
and the Texas Cable Association. And we followed comments
yesterday on a, on a somewhat related note. Uh which
is uh on the subject of uh conforming changes to Rule
26.111. Um and we would propose that, that rule be amended
to conform with the uh Commission's decisions in the
demon systems and earth grade cases. Um in which case
the uh the Commission confirmed that neither PURA nor
the Texas Admin Code. Prohibited the Commission from
granting an SBCOA. To an applicant that does not
provide or intend to provide local exchange, telephone
service, basic local telecommunications service or
switched to access service. And could in fact provide
services such as VoIP, DSL, etcetera. So we think
uh it would be a good idea to amend the provision to
conform to that. And uh we filed written comments yesterday
So I'm not gonna go into a lot of detail. That's I
can kind of stop there, but I can also speak to the
other comments we filed, but I don't know if we wanna
stop there or go on to other subjects. I think that
we're, we have the time to entertain uh other pressing
rulemaking priorities that you think apply to this,
this industry. What I will ask on that first question.
Is uh which, where did you file those comments? So that
we can look at them, do you know? Um 55156.
Yeah, should we file it in uh 54589 as well? Actually
I think we may have filed similar comments in that
one. Yeah, we filed not identical but similar comments
in uh both proceedings.
Okay. Um we will um uh I don't wanna make any representations
about whether or not we would include it in this rulemaking.
But we will take a look at your filing and
um, um include it, if we think that we can. (item:1.4:David Smeltzer's additional thoughts on implementing rulemaking) And I think
for, for our general um
uh our general decision. Sort of filter for the
the rulemaking beyond what was required by Legislation
was whether or not we think that it was sort of minor
or didn't require sufficient investigation or we thought
it was sort of clear cut on direction. And so if, uh
if it sort of meets those criteria, we might include
it. But if not, we would not include it. And then eventually
we'll be filing something to the Commissioners and
say these are all the recommended ideas for the Chapter
26 rule review that we did not accept. So that they
can um, determine whether or not they want to direct
us. To treat those items in a different rulemaking
at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thanks.
And I would at this point say the floor has opened
for any telecom related rule making, priority discussion
topics that are of interest.
(item:1.4:David Smeltzer closes 1st session) All right, hearing none. Uh thank you for attending
today. And uh these uh I hadn't really thought about
these ongoing Legislation items. That might be coming
up in Special, so I appreciate that note. And thank
you for directing us to that filing. We'll take a look
as I indicated. And um the first, the first part of
this trilogy was a short one, but it was good to wet
everyone's appetite uh for the, the session that works
have to come. So, thanks for coming.
(item:2:David Smeltzer welcomes water participants & lays out 2nd Session objective) Hello, water people. Welcome to the 2nd of the
three Commission Staff um Legislative implementation
workshops for today. Um
for those that were not here for the first one. Commission
Staff thanks you all for coming. Um our goal is uh
you know this Legislature gave us. Yeah, this session
the Legislature gave us, you know, estimates our estimates
are maybe 39 or 40 potential rulemaking. Something that we could
have coming out of this session. And we have identified
the Commission Staff will be providing the Commission
with recommendations on the order. In which we should
you know the sequence and order in which we should
prioritize these. And before we did that, we wanted
to give the public an opportunity and stakeholders
an opportunity to let us know what we may have missed
on our list. Give us some perspective on which of these
issues are most pressing for your industries. And
provide any other priorities that we should be considering
in addition to those that are listed here. And so we
finished telecom early compared to that was a quick
discussion. Because there weren't very many telecom
bills that were passed. Water is sort of an interesting
landscape here. Because you know, there were a number
of water bills that were passed but none of them had
statutory deadlines. And so the two bills that we listed
in our memo just reflect our current rule making efforts
which are implementing a number of bills from last
session. And that doesn't mean that we won't be chugging
along through implementing the water bills this session.
We just wanted to get feedback before we determined
what the, you know, the first priority should be. (item:2:David Smeltzer provides housekeeping notes) Um
some additional sort of housekeeping notes. Um, if
you hear anything today that upon reflection later.
You think oh, maybe that's a little bit right. Here's
another idea for how they can do this more efficiently.
We'll be accepting sort of concise filed comments through
the end of the week. Um, and we'll, we'll publish some
instructions on that a little bit later. And the other
comment I would note. Is if it turns out that there's
a number of things to uh as we're talking. You don't
have to ask permission to come up, just go ahead and
come up and sit at one of the chairs. If you have,
if you want to comment on the topic under discussion.
And we'll sort of call on you at the appropriate time.
And if there are multiple people waiting, uh the sort
of convention that I use. Is if you want, if you're
waiting to talk on whatever is currently being talked
about. Give me a little one and if you're just waiting
to talk about something else, a little two. So that
way we don't do the sort of awkward dance of who, who
should be talking next. Um so yeah, there we go. Uh
My name is, I guess I should have said at the beginning.
My name is David Smeltzer. I'm the Director of Rules
and Projects here. And joining me at the dias are um
Rama Rastogi, Mackenzie Arthur and Iliana De La Fuente from RAP.
And of course, Tammy Benter the Head of our Duo division
and um, uh, most knowledgeable person I know on water
and sewer topics. So, thank you for coming.
So, I guess for starters um, we'll just work through
uh, one item at a time. Uh does anyone have any comments
on um. So we've got the 2 that are ongoing now and
I think that these are known. Because there are comments
on these, but in terms of the Bills that were passed.
For this session, has anyone identified any pieces
of Legislation that they think require rulemakings
that they did not see on our list? Have we missed anything?
Thanks.
(item:2.1:Jeff Kirshbaum, General Counsel, Texas Association of Water Companies) Hi, Jeff Kirshbaum with the Law Firm Terrill & Waldrop, I represent
Texas Association of Water Companies. I serve as their
General Counsel. Uh we appreciate the ongoing effort
in Project 53924. Obviously that was from last Session.
We did not see on the list what was uh planned for
implementation of 88th Session items. And on my list
I have the uh HB2373 which repealed the requirement.
To have substantial similarity among systems for consolidation
on a tariff. That is, that was in 13.145 of the
Water Code and in the Rules 24.25KNM. Implement
that language from 13.145 and there was a repeal.
So those that should just be removed from the rules
Okay. And I think when you so the memo listed the, um
you're right. Those are the 87 things we're currently
working on. I think there was a chart at the bottom
that listed was the, was the item that you're mentioning
on that chart? Yes, it's number 24. Okay, cool. So, okay
so it's on there. Um and so we agree this uh in
terms of our own internal prioritization. The repeal
of the substantial test, we identify that as a critical
for getting some of these systems consolidated quickly
so. We appreciate the focus on that. Okay. Um so, so
that was one that our organization was involved with.
And also uh SB1, SB1778. Um there's some language
in 24.161A. That's number 22 on the chart. (item:2.1:Jeff Kirshbaum on written service applications) I think
what probably what needs to happen there is. Uh, some
thought given to the requirement for a written service
application. Because what that statute says is it can
be in some other form. And I think there's probably
some TCEQ coordination that needs to go on with that
one as well as far as a service agreement or service
application in writing.
The other one
I three.
And, and while he's talking, I will say that that Jeff
is doing exactly what we hope for, which is, you know
implementation ideas, priorities, anything we may have
missed. And I'm not an expert on every Bill that passed.
I'm not a West Wing character, but we will be reviewing
these uh later in the video and incorporating them
into our thinking. So uh so yeah, we appreciate these
sorts of notes. (item.2.1:Jeff Kirshbaum on Senate Bill 1965) Uh Senate Bill 1965 was one that the
intent of it was to create an easier way for investor
own utilities serving as temporary managers. To acquire
systems that are in trouble, you know, more permanently.
And there's, there's some language in there about creating
an expedited way to acquire those systems either through
the asset or stock transfer procedures. And then what
you would get in terms of any investment that you made
during your temporary manager later in a rate case.
So there's some very different rules. I think that
that would go into probably 24.239, 24.243. Uh cause
of service changes could be 24.41. Um there may also
need to be in addition to Subchapter K. About having
a reasonable time to bring the systems into compliance.
And that's another one that I think there's a PUC
component to it. And a TCEQ need for a rule allowing
a reasonable time. For bringing a system acquired under
temporary manager in compliance after it's acquired.
Tammy, so far does this sound like what we were thinking?
Yes. That's good news. (item:2.1:David Smeltzer questions on purpose of rules listed) Um and, and of course
the rule, you listed a number of rules. I mean, just
for Tammy may know this already. But are these rules
that you of the rules that you listed, that we need
to identify for those purposes? Do you know? Do we
need to open them for other purposes on this list
for efficiency's sake? Are there, are these rules of
interest for other reasons? So the sale transfer merger
rules are definitely something I think that needs to
be reviewed comprehensively, not just for the purpose
of this Senate Bill 1965 implementation. There's a lot
of concerns about the process right now. Okay. So I think
that's, I think that's probably one of the top issues
on our list as an organization. And I know that there
were, there were comments in the um the initial rates
uh draft. That we should consider moving those provisions
from their own section into the Sale Transfer Merger
section that would also treat that rule. And I think
that those comments are well received. And I, you know
I don't wanna say for sure what we're gonna do. But
we, I definitely understood what. That's one issue.
The thought behind that. (item:2.1:Jeff Kirshbaum on STM process) I think there's been a lot
of issues with respect to financial review. As well
in, in both the amendment and the STM process. We'd
like to see that looked at uh that just generally the
the STM process right now. You get an order, you get
to go close your transaction and then on the back end
there's this final order. We kind of have an issue
with during the interim. Like what, what needs to,
we would prefer just to be one order. Where you get
to the approval to close and all the regulatory approvals
that you need are contingent maybe on that closing
but it's all at one in one step. Yeah. So I think
this is why I like the discussion format. I think that
we probably we're gonna pull for other ideas a little
bit later. But as long as we're, as long as we're on
the topic of the sale transfer merger rules. So anyone
that has any other comments they want to make about
that rule or priorities? And you know, we obviously
when we open the rule there specifically. But in terms
of pressing issues. That if we open that rule for implementation
is, does anyone else have any other comments that they
want to add to the discussion? (item:2.1:Brian Barr with Texas Water Utilities, Midway Water Utilities, SWWC Utilities DPA on STM) Uh I'm Brian Barr with
Texas Water Utilities, Midway Water Utilities and
SWWC Utilities DPA, number of few different things.
Um and you're also the official guy that tells me which
item on the chart the, the Bill is the chart. We
appreciate that already. I um yeah, so um I guess just
to reiterate what Jeff said. Uh number of STM and CCN
applications too, but mostly focused on the STM. Where
that window between the closing of the transaction
and the file notice of approval. Creates some problems
that probably weren't originally contemplated. When
the rule was drafted, namely when say the filed rate
doctrine bill was passed. That uh for rates, post acquisition.
And I know we have the rulemaking open now to address
that. But uh just to reiterate what Jeff said. We could
resolve a lot of issues by mitigating or eliminating
or decreasing that window between closing and final
most of approval. So that's something that we advocate
for, for sure.
Um do you have any follow up questions on that point?
(item:2.1:Tammy Benter, Director of Water Utility Regulation, on STM) I don't know how if this works, but that requires some
TCEQ, sorry. TCEQ coordination also. Because they recognize
a sale once we issue the order saying it's done. Um
and so that in between. Um there's a lot of coordination
that goes on with them. Because they're continuing to
do their inspections and everything. And so it's like
who officially owns it. And so it's gonna require a
lot of coordination there. Yeah, I agree completely.
That's, yeah. (item:2.1:Brian Barr on HB2373) Uh and then one other general comment
uh related to what Jeff said. He named three bills
here. That I think the water industry in general are
most interested in. Numbers 22 and 23 and 24 on the
chart. Let me just suggest and I really not trying
to step on anyone's toes or. That's why we're here.
Um specifically for HB2373, that's number 24. I would
respectfully recommend that, that one be taken up. Because
that is a assuming there are no surprises that is a
really quick and easy rulemaking. In which all we have
to do is strike Section K of TAC 24.25, and potentially
Section M as well. Right, Jeff? Yes. It's not really
an amendment where we need to open it up and have a
lot of comments and discussions. Really just strike
that language to be consistent with the Legislative
Bill. So, just polling the room by room, by show of
hands. Does anyone disagree with the sentiment that
that would be a quick, easy one?
All right. That's always good.
And that one's in effect now.
Correct. Yeah. Okay. So I think uh there are other folks at the
table we uh waiting to. Are we still on the question
of items for recommendation that we may not? We've
gone a little off the path, but that was the originating
question. So if, if you have anyone who has, yes. Uh
well. (item:2.1:Ashley Myers, Executive Director of Texas Association of Water Companies on HB1484 & HB1963) Ashley Myers, Executive Director of Texas Association
of Water Companies. Um you know, of course, a lot
of you in this room know about the Association. And
know that um we've worked pretty hard on a lot of this
Legislation that's in front of you guys and in front
of the Commission. Um we're glad that HB1484 has
been opened up that we have gotten to the fed rate
doctor. And I think that's TWC 13 3001 or 3011.
I just want to impress upon Staff. That I think we can
resolve a lot of confusion and just get some clarity
once this rulemaking is, is complete. Um we do have
some reservations about some of the ideas that have
been tossed around. We did of course submit some comments
and reply to the um uh comments in there, in that uh
project. I'm sorry. I can't remember the number right
now. But I think just continuing these conversations
and working with stakeholders as you always do. To try
to align the statute as it's written with rulemaking.
Is really the goal for us right now. Of course, 88th
Legislative Session that those items are important
to us. I think the Temporary Management Bill, uh HB1963
which is or 1965 is Item 23. Um that is also
a safety concern. We've seen first hand what it looks
like when systems fail or abandoned. And it's a terrible
situation for those people and we want to make sure
that we that, that never happens again. Um and I think
that this is a great step forward and I would love
to see that taken up pretty soon here as well. And
our members are eager to take advantage of it. And be
of use and help to the state and those failing systems.
Um so just from the Association, Association standpoint
we appreciate this conversation. I don't know if we've
ever actually had anything like this before. I, I mean
I'm new to the industry. But it sounds like this kind
of conversation is new and we really appreciate it.
Because it brings everyone to the table to have that
open discussion about rulemaking. Um, and what the
concerns of the industry folks are. And, you know, they're
in this every single day just like you guys are. So
they know, and you guys know how hard it can be and
how difficult it can be. And everyone's out here trying
to do the best that they can. With our members strive
to come to you guys with administratively complete
applications. But unless they have the clarity of what
you guys need from them. It makes it really difficult
to do that and to get that achieve that goal. So I'm
just generally speaking, uh very excited to see the
rule making open on um valery doctrine. And then of course
we would impress upon the Commission to take up the
substantial similarity and the temporary management
as well as soon as possible. Perfect. I think that's
uh that's good. And on the, and I will admit, I think
that there's a, there's a robust and really good exchange
in the comments going on in there. And as someone who
spends most of his time thinking about electric. I've
really appreciated the comments filed on both sides
of some of those questions. And I think those are high
level policy questions that will ultimately, you know
every decision is made by the Commissioners, but some
of them are most important, you know, some of them
are most more worthy of them giving an in depth look
than not. And I think that the the speed at which some
of these transfers are processed and how, how we do
those are definitely ones that I know that they're
interested in. And so uh your comments are understood
and well received on the importance of those. (item:2.4:Brian Barr's response to questions prior from David Smeltzer) Uh David
you had asked two specific questions I want, we've
kind of been talking at least I have about thoughts
I had in the car on the way over here. I want
to make sure I addressed your questions specifically
One was um are there any uh legislation that wasn't
identified by Staff in the chart and per my review
No, you guys did a good job. You nailed it all. I
didn't see anything that was in there. There was one
I thought I caught I was really happy about and then
Jeff corrected me, it's a TCEQ item. So thank you, Jeff.
Never mind. I, I was really prepared to have my moment
in the sun there. Uh but uh then the other question
you asked was uh are there any efficiencies that can
be gained by combining certain ones? And you know,
and Jeff mentioned the comprehensive rulemaking around
STMs. Um I didn't identify any specific ones that
could be uh, combined into a single rulemaking. Okay.
Well, that, that's helpful. I know, I know. I look
to Jeff, you know, he always corrects me. You're correct.
And, and for our filed comments we, we agree with
that. And, and, um, question three and four.
Yeah, David. (item:2.4:Joe Freeland with Matthews & Freeland on additional bills not listed) Joe Freeland, uh, Matthew and Freeland.
Um, as to bills you didn't identify on, on the list
I think HB4559, which is the, that decade correction
of population figures. Uh, it, it, I know it at least
address 13.2541. Those, all the brackets in particularly
254 25.41. All the brackets in Chapter 13 were probably
adjusted somewhat in that bill. Uh and I, I suspect
that ought to be. I mean, that's an easy correction
for a rule. You just change 2000 to 2200 to whatever
the change is in the bill. Um, it, it could cause some
confusion on filings, filings in the near future.
Because they're gonna be areas that look in the rule
look, appear to be outside of the Commission's jurisdiction.
Which are suddenly actually because the bill or in
the jurisdiction. Okay. That's a good note. And I, uh
we'll, we'll take a look at, I, I don't know. How is
that one that we're tracking, do you know?
Yeah, it, it, it's a stealth bill. It comes every year.
They, once the, the census is done. The, the Land Council
go back and they review the bills and fix those um
population criteria in the, in the brackets. Okay, perfect.
We will uh take a look at that and I don't, I
guess we'll take a look to see if that's done by rule.
And if we, it sounds like you've given it more thought
than us. And so uh maybe we'll reach out if we have
questions on the way you're thinking about it for implementation.
But thanks for, thanks for making a note of that.
Sure. (item:2.3:Joe Freeland with Matthews & Freeland on HB3689) And, and I'll, I'll put my um other hat on my
San Antonio Water System hat. Uh thank the Commission
for starting rulemaking on um in 54932 . To implement
HB3689. That was a Bill is was worked on Session before.
Um and that was tied into a rulemaking which we had
drafted for the Commission back in about 2018. Which
addressed both that issue, which we sort of refer to
as the wood lock issue. And then also addressed uh just
the petition requirements under um 13.043B. Right
to appeal from outside city ratemakers or outside
city customers or um district customers. That, that
appeal process, right? They file a petition if they
get 10% or more. The rules don't address that very
well. There's no real clear pro process in the Commission's
rules now. And so we had drafted some language in 2018
2019. Um, which we brought and chopped to the Commissioners.
Um, and then Chairman Walker had told us she was going
to do a comprehensive fix of the water bills and then
February 2021 came. And so, um, all of that has sort
of dropped off. We have that already drafted. I mean
Tammy, you probably, you probably still have a copy of
that. We um if we could try to find a way to
put it back into the, the priority list somewhere.
Sure. Uh I, I uh and will not be making any, making
any off the cuff commitments today. But if you feel
do, do we have a copy? I think I do. Can you
just make sure I can, I can resend it to you. Um
And we, we, you know, we can take out the, the, the
stuff that was fixed in 54932 and maybe do a little
clean up on it otherwise. But it, it was a, a process
that would actually streamline um Commission Staff
review. So, and it would sort of shift the burden from
Staff back to the utility. Sure. Um I don't work on
these contested cases but I'm sure that the members
of our Staff that do would appreciate streamlining.
Uh So yeah, send it, send it over, we'll take a look.
Uh the Association doesn't have any other comments.
So uh just one general comment and that's, uh, Jeff
kind of touched on earlier. (item:2.4:Brian Barr on STM form) But, um, as we do the rule
makings. If there are any reviews necessary for applications
or notices or that sort of thing, that could be really
helpful to do those. Maybe if not part of the rule
making, concurrent with the rulemaking. I'm thinking
specifically of the STM form, um, that, and notices
that we send out that sort of thing, Uh just um throw
that out there. Yeah, agreed that our are
process for uh rethinking about forms and sort of stuff
that's Ancillary to rules is, is under review right
now. And, you know, sometimes Tammy will, will practically
implement things that can form with the rules and sometimes
we do it through process and we are the, the last two
sessions since we've booted up the rules and projects
division has been sort of a learning couple of years
but I appreciate what you're saying. I don't know if
it's under the daily wick of this discussion, but just
want to throw it out there. And we've got enough time
to where all topics. And David one one last thing, if I maybe.
(item:2.4:Joe Freeland on SB893) Uh SB893. I, I don't know the priority that y'all
want to work on that. That's the one to correct boundary
issues on CCNs. And, and I, you know, I suspect that
you'll start seeing applications being filed uh prior
to rule making on that. So I don't know how y'all want
to address it. That would, from, from SAWS perspective
that would be a fairly high priority. Because we have
a lot of boundary issues that need to be resolved within
a SAWS CCN. Yeah. So, I mean, I, I don't know
what order we'll be able to be able to take it up
in, but, you know, generally speaking, statutes take
precedent over rules and so that's why, you know, I'm
without commenting on the specific things. I think
that, you know, your regulatory attorneys can help
you with that. But, uh, sometimes we practically have
to defer to statutes for a while while we're waiting
for rules to come out and that one's effective immediately
So we're already too late now. I just gotta get, uh
very good. No, we'll, uh, that's good note.
Um, ok. So just checking base, I think that we've gotten
a few are going to line. Is there, are there any other
bills that we think need maybe legislative treatment
that have not been touched on that anyone is aware
of?
And then are there any other, uh, as anyone like to
advocate for any, uh, please do the, these ones first
that we haven't heard yet about?
And are there any other pressing, um, any other pressing
priorities faced by your industry that are not reflected
in Legislation. That you would like the Commissioners
to consider to be taken up prior to Legislation? And
I know that we heard a little bit about the Financial
Assurance um uh topic. Which is not a surprise to me
to hear. Um, but yes, uh not related to that question
directly. (item:2.4:Bill Barr question on mechanisms other than rulemakin) But, um, one of the questions on here was
uh are there any items listed for rule making that
should be implemented using a different method such
as an order or directive? Um I don't know if we identified
anything but I could you explain very briefly, um what
sort of mechanisms other than rulemaking? There might
be? Sure. (item:2.4:David Smeltzer on rule and statute differences) I think that in some cases, a rule is not
necessary and a statute provides sufficient guidance
to a rulemaking is not necessary. And I think that
also that question is probably more relevant in the
electric world because there's a lot of things that
ERCOT can do um that, you know, like if we need to
develop a new Ancillary service or something that might
that might be the sort of thing that they can do without
a rule. Um And so, or uh yeah, so working from statute
stuff that we don't without a rule or in limited cases
the Commission might be able to issue an order, directing
entities to do things um like if we have to file reports
or things like that. And so um we're looking for any
efficiency, we can squeeze out of this. And so probably
that, that question is most relevant to electric where
there might be uh specific things where it's like,
oh no, we think we have enough guidance to file this
report without you having to do a rule on it or, or
I can do instead. So that's the sort of stuff you were
thinking about. Got you. Thank you very much. Is that
uh or in your industry? If, if we've identified something
you're like, no, no, this is a TCEQ thing, not a you
thing. That would be the sort of comment maybe. So
Is that like um I'm thinking of an instance where I
think a rule making was opened related to filing electronically
at the PUC and then nothing ever. I'm seeing some blank
there. That no, no, that that is there is that is a
storied is that. And that alternative mechanism was
used to change something. That, that like many things is one. (item:2.4:David Smeltzer on comprehensive overhaul on how filings are processed) Where uh
our Executive Director Thomas Gleeson has said that
we will be accepting electronic filings and we still
are. And that rule has been under review for a while
and we're actively working on the draft. I know it
may not seem like it, but that has, that has turned
from, we're actually looking at a more comprehensive
overhaul of 2271 that where we're rethinking our confidential
filing requirements and we're rethinking open meeting
posting documents. And for reasons you can understand
that's something that are the operation side of our
agency is very interested in. And I know that the public
needs would like guidance on some of those things.
So we're doing it. But there have been a lot of um
you know, in our core subject industries, we regulate
It's been difficult to carve out the review time. But
actually Mac has been desperately hoping that I would
review his uh spend more time with his draft on that.
But uh but that is an example where as a patchwork
approach, we've been following uh Gleason's guidance
rather than making you guys file paper copies until
we get the rule done. But that's a good example. Thanks.
I really, I was just that, that is an active project
for anyone who's, who's interested in that. Okay. I,
I was really just trying to understand for purposes
of review. If there was one that I could recommend
uh be used uh through an alternative method rather
than a rule making but nothing off the top of my head
I'll review afterwards. Yeah. And I think that the
example that for me that I, I think that after the
last session nays are a number of bills like uh on
designating critical water facilities and things like
that where uh uh we sort of were taking practical approaches
rather than waiting for rulemaking that I, I'm not
aware of this many this this time around. Yeah, that
SB3 was pretty comprehensive indeed.
OK. Well, that being the case I will will now say that
you know, while we're all here. We have another you
know, some time allocated before, before we break.
Uh So the floor is open for items of discussion for
the folks in the room.
All right. Well, fantastic. This was good. (Item:2.4:David Smeltzer closes 2nd session) This accomplished
everything that we were hoping for. We got a few notes
on items that they were not on our radar. Some good
focus on priorities that are outside of the implementation
schedule here. And uh we appreciate your feedback and
participation and navigational guidance of the agenda
by participants.
And uh thus ended the workshop. Thank you.
(item:3:David Smeltzer welcome participants and opens 3rd session) Welcome all to the stunning conclusion of the Staff
Legislative implementation trilogy today. Uh We had
good sessions this morning on telecom and water and
predictably the room is the fullest for this uh electric
panel. Because that's what we received the most bills
on. Uh my name is David Smeltzer. I'm the Director
of the Rules and Project Division with me. Here is
Rama Rastogi. She's a Project Manager for the Rules and
Project Division. And there are a number of other Staff
in the room who we will introduce you to if it is
fitting for them to come up as part of any of the
discussion.
(item:3:David Smeltzer lays out 3rd session objective) The main reason that we're having this workshop today
is for those of you who have been part of the fund
for the last couple of years, I think coming out of
the 87th Legislative Session. We got the largest sort
of rule making assignment load from the Legislature
that we've seen. And last Session, I think we got a
lot of statutory deadlines that provided the sort of
guidance on the issues that we should prioritize and
the way that we should sequence our rule making efforts
This session. Thankfully, from my perspective, the
Legislature gave us fewer hard deadlines which will
make it easier to accommodate. But also that gives
us more flexibility in determining the order in which
we should do these. So as everyone knows, a lot of
times, you know, we are confined by the Administrative
Procedure Act and staffing realities and a number of
other factors in terms of how we can actually execute
these rules in order. However, as Commission Staff
assembles its recommendations to the Commissioners
on how we should proceed with these rule makings, we
wanted to give a chance for stakeholders and other
members of the public. To have a voice in that and let
us know where we might be off what mistakes we might
have made. And what additional input and priorities
exist for the industry to answer some, some common
questions we get. Some folks reached out that were
not able to not able to attend today. And as you would
have seen in the workshop notice, we did offer the
option to file comments and we are going to extend
the deadline for filing comments on that to close of
business on Friday. And we will file a memo or something
of that regard to that effect shortly. But I will say
that one of the reasons we wanted to do the workshop
format is because we've had a lot of success with the
ADER workshops. And I think that there is the ability
to sort of vet and discuss priorities in real time
with different folks at the table uh leads to better
outcomes. And so if you are at any point sitting on
your hands, saying should I come talk or should I just
file it? Get up to the dias right now is the time
the other question that we often get with these sorts
of things is if this is a Commission project where
the Commissioners. And I would say that the Commissioners
have all expressed to me, they are excited about this
input. And they, they're tuning in. And in fact, I think
several Legislators are tuning in as well. And so the
you know, they will be listening and we will be briefing
them on any comments that are filed. But I think sometimes
folks are more willing to come speak candidly with
Staff than with Commissioners. And also it's easier
not to have to call an open meeting. So, you know,
the Commissioners are, will be receiving all your comments
and they're very valuable to them.
(item:3:David Smeltzer lays out housekeeping details) So a few housekeeping matters, those were some, some
more are the way that we will be proceeding today is
by discussion format. So unlike at an open meeting
we've got a number of,
if I'm, if I'm not the only one who hasn't turned off
your phone. That would be a good thing to do now.
Um, you know, if at any point we get to a discussion
topic where you think you have something to contribute
find an open chair. Um, and we will sort of call on
you as you come up and manage a discussion as best
we can. And also sort of informal protocol that we
developed in the, the ADER workshops. Is if you are
up at the dais because you are interested in speaking on
the current topic. You know, you can wave a little
one when we see you speaking and if you are waiting
to talk on another topic, um you can just give us a
two. So that way we know who to call on first.
So let's, let's get started, I guess, unlike the other
two that we had. There were, there was
a lot of legislation in the electric, in the electric
space this time. (item:3.1:David Smeltzer on SB365) And so I guess I'll briefly review
why staff's initial recommendations for the first wave.
And I will say that for, you know, pending Commissioner
agreement and any discussion that we have today. I
think that we, we did have a few statutory deadlines
and a few real world realities that made it. So I think
that we've fairly well identified what we think are
our first wave of rule making that were either booted
up or starting to boot up. And so the list is, was
uh so the, you know, the list that's included in the
memo here and I'll just tell you why they're there.
(item:3.2:David Smeltzer on SB1076) The first of which was we're working on implementing
SB365 and um sort of facilitating implementation
of SB1076. And the reason is, is one of the
challenges that are Commission and the industry face
right now is that we have to, we're working on expediting
the transmission process so that we can get transmission
lines built faster and accordingly, the legislature
provided direction that we needed to increase. Rather
we need to decrease the timeline from 360 to 180 days.
And so, in order to help meet that, we, we've already
initiated a rule making to modify the notice provisions
you know, procedural notice provisions for intervention
And so that's why that was the top of the list. And
that same rule making will allow us to implement 365,
SB365. Which requires additional notice to be provided
to landowners adjacent to proposed substations. And
so that was, that was an easy start because you know
the CCN application is already coming in and we want
to be able to process these transmission lines quickly.
(item:3.4:David Smeltzer on HB2555) The next cluster of rules that we've identified that
we want to start looking at now have to do with resiliency
and reliability planning. The resiliency planning HB2555
allows transmission and distribution utilities
to propose resiliency plans for which they can get
recovery. This is included on the first wave implementation
list because it came with 180 day implementation timeline
and that clock is already ticking. (item:3.5:David Smeltzer on HB5066) Similarly, HB5066
reliability plans. We are still and this can be
a discussion point today. But we are still, we don't
have a deadline for implementing the rule. The rule
that allows us to require ERCOT to develop reliability
plans for regions with insufficient capacity that is
open ended. But we do specifically have to direct them
to develop a reliability plan for the Permian Basin
region by January. And so we're currently evaluating
whether or not we need the rule making to proceed that
order if we or if we can order them more directly without.
(item:3.6:David Smeltzer on HB1500) Um similarly, um another one that came with the deadline
for us was in HB1500, Section 9. Which is listed
here as transmission interconnection allowance. But
essentially this is here because of 180 deadline.
And it similar to how um loads of a certain size have
to pay a standard allowance for interconnection will
be thinking through a similar uh similar provision
for generation. (item:3.6:David Smeltzer on HB1500, 2nd Section 13, TDUs circuit segmentation study) Um another item that we have listed
here that we're looking at that may actually not be
through rulemaking, I don't think is HB1500, 2nd Section
13 orders the TDUs to do a circuit segmentation study.
Um basically, you know, we want the Legislature would
like them to look at their systems and figure out if
they can take the units which they are able to, um
you know, when they shed Load and divide those into
smaller units. I think that there are a lot of technical
known technical issues with that and we need to explore
that further. The reason this is on the list is, I
think we've been getting a lot of questions on if we're
going to be doing a rule making on this. And presently
our plan is to release something like a discussion
draft, but it said it will be a proposed order will
allow you guys to have a comment on whether or not
we're ordering the right kind of information that would
be most useful in determining whether or not circuit
segmentation is appropriate or not. And then we will
be formally issuing the order with enough time for
the TDUs to, to do that. (item:3.7:David Smeltzer on HB1500, Section 17) Another key item that made
it on the list is HP 1500, Section 17. Which has to
do with ERCOT directives. But that rule making will
also include um you know, some SB3 provisions
that had to do with other ERCOT governance things and
under SB or under HB1500. The ways in which the Commission
is able to direct ERCOT to do things has been um has
been modified. And so instead of being able to give
verbal directives at open meetings, in most cases,
we're going to have to either do a written order or
a rule making or contested case. And I think that a
lot of stakeholders and members of the public and Commission
will benefit from additional clarity on the ways that
ERCOT can be directed by the Commission. And so
we are, we're including that on our first wave as sort
of an operational necessity to improve, you know, predictability
and transparency in the in PUC process. I also will
note that one of the prompts for discussion today is
um one of the prompts for discussion today. Is are
there any things that can be implemented, you know
without a rule making? And so, you know, directives
ERCOT may be one of the answers in some situations
and you'll see a few items down for the.
(item:3.8:David Smeltzer on HB1500, Section 22) Oh, in fact, the next item that uh HB1500, Section
22 has to do with the development of a dispatch reliability
reserve service. And I think presently, we think that
can be accomplished by directive rather than by rulemaking
and whether or not any directives get done prior to
September 1st or after September 1st uh impact the
ways in which we're able to uh provide those directives.
(item:3.9:David Smeltzer on HB1500, Section 40) The next rule making that we've identified as being
a first wave rulemaking is HP 1500 section 40 which
has to do with a significant power outage has to do
with allowing transmission and distribution utilities
to lease out mobile generation units and other similar
things to respond significant power outages. This
did not have a deadline, but we actually had an ongoing
rule making for the version of this legislation from
last session. So the rule making team is was already
assembled. So like okay press on, we've had the first
wave of contested cases. We have new legislation and
we know that this is critical in terms of our abilities
to respond to ongoing power outages. So we wanted to
prioritize that as well. And I think for those interested
the project team is also exploring including SB415
as part of that rule making projects work, which is
a similar provision from last session that has to do
with TDUs ability to use energy storage solutions.
(item:4.1:David Smeltzer on SB3, Section 18) Also included on the list just for public awareness
because it's been posted for a long, it's been posted
on the rule making calendar for a long time. Is Section
18 from SP3 last time which directs the Commission
to develop an emergency pricing program. Um We have
uh we have been interested in doing that for a long
time but because of heavy rule making Load, we haven't
gotten to it yet, but the team is assembled and beginning
to have discussions with a on developing that on that
now. (item:4.2:David Smeltzer on SB2627) And then finally, the last one is part of our
you know, we're trying to get started right away is
SB2627 which creates the Texas Energy Fund. And, um
you know, the back uh backup program and this is one
that is, uh, it's a, it's a complicated piece of legislation
and it's a little bit different than anything that
the Commission does. And so we are already starting
to have discussions with other agencies that have similar
types of funds such as the Swift Fund at TWDB. So that
we can um build up our expertise that's going to be
necessary to implement such a thing. And our current
one, one weird aspect about the Texas Energy Fund is
that it is not actually it has to be, there's a corresponding
constitutional amendment that has to be adopted by
a public referendum in the November election. And so
the way we're trying to sort of split the work on this
is staff currently hopes to file, you know, at the
beginning of the rule making process, we file a draft
of a rule for public comment and that has most of the
logistics of the rule worked out. And then at the end
of the rule making process, we have to issue a final
order which is the final rule and it has responses
to all public comments. And the assembly of that final
order can sometimes take weeks and depending on the
complication, how complicated a rule is could be several
100 pages long. And so the, the way we're, we're currently
the way that Staff is recommending the Commission proceed
on that at this time is to try and get the, the
draft rule out prior to the November election and do
the, the final order and a couple of weeks of work
associated with that after the November election. And
so this is, that is Staff's current plan. And so the
first are the, your Staff's current recommendations
for what are the obvious first tier implementation
items from this uh this most recent session? And so
I will now say that the first prompt and reason for
this rule making is or for this workshop rather is
Uh is there anything else that should be on this list
either based on a statutory implementation deadline
that I may have missed or a real world practicality
that merits something being taken up first. (item:4:David Smeltzer on HB1500 Renewable Energy) And actually
as I looked down, I realized I skipped one in HB1500.
There's also sort of a repeal of the goals associated
with the Renewable Energy credit trading program. And
we've had stakeholders reach out to us already looking
for guidance in how they are supposed to comply with
this year since it's based on a calendar year. And
so our Staff is already exploring possible guidance
on how best to comply with the, the rule and statute
in that regard. And so um returning back to the prompt
that I was getting at okay. (item:3:David Smeltzer asks if any additional items to be added to list) First wave of rulemaking
Is there anything that's not on this list that should
be? And I would invite anyone who has anything um to
discuss on that matter to join, join us at the front
And when you, when you uh if you, if you come up
when you speak, if you will identify your name and
anyone that you represent that will help us later.
Um I'll also say that today we, you know, we will get
into details, we will get into details to the extent
that it is helpful for discussion, but flagging and
identifying the issues is what is the best way for
us to use our sort of two hours today. And then if
we need to have follow up meetings or conversations
we will know how to find you either because we already
know you or we'll check, we'll check the sign up sheet
that was outside the door.
(item:3:Jason Danowski with Young Energy on moratoriums against disconnections during weather emergencies) Good afternoon. Uh My name is Jason Danowski. I'm here
representing Young Energy. Been certified as
a rep since 2005 and uh here today to talk about something
that's not a legislative matter. But it is concerning
a real world issue, which is uh moratoriums against
disconnections during extreme weather emergencies.
So, in the past couple of years, there's been a number
of investigations and sanctions with regards to disconnection
moratoriums. And our concern is that these investigations
and sanctions don't address the systemic issues that
are leading to not in compliance. For that reason, we
would propose a future PUC workshop that could address
these systemic issues. To give an example of what I'm
talking about. So, uh TD us are not obligated to provide
reps the uh the subscribers county of record. However
national weather service advisories, which are the
basis of these extreme weather emergencies are issued
county by county. So an REP could inadvertently uh
issue a disconnection for nonpayment during a moratorium
to someone in a county because they don't have the
right county and getting these counties. And this information
from third party aggregators is often inaccurate. So
you know, there's no one better for us to get it from
than the TDUs. Um workshop could also address uh the
development and sharing of methods by which these advisories
are incorporated into TDU and REP systems. The advisories
that I mentioned they're sent by email. So that means
TDU and REP Staff have to manually look at emails and
then manually incorporate the information of those
emails into their systems which could lead to delay
into user error. Likewise, the uh communications between
TDUs and REPs on these matters is also by email again
you have delay and user error. Um So, you know, developing
systems that could do a better handshake or otherwise
incorporate this information would benefit Texas consumers
uh and marketplace participants. Uh The workshop could
also be followed by a rule making proceeding to address
issues such as consistency between the rule and the
statute and to consider a safe harbor provision. Uh
The alliance for retail markets filed comments in the
uh in the proceeding ending in 89. I apologize. I don't
have that number right in front of me. But the other
proceeding which they proposed a two hour safe harbor.
Young Energy endorses that safe harbor concept. So
two hours after the weather moratorium begins would
be, uh you know, an opportunity for if we inadvertently
set out a disconnection to correct that disconnection
before then. Um, but we'd also note that if the systemic
issues are addressed, you could have a shorter safe
harbor. Because you wouldn't be sending out as many
inadvertent disconnections. Uh thank you. Thank you.
Uh, okay so as some housekeeping off of that. (item:3:David Smeltzer's response the Young Energy) I think
and I think we discussed before and I knew that this
was going to be an issue. It's a known issue that comes
up. Um And so I think, you know, that is a short
level of detail as far as like why the issue is important
to you or your client that allows us to flag it. And
I think just so that we know Staff is not going to
be making any reactions or, you know, unless there's
known interest by the Commissioners to do something.
For the most part, I think this is going to be an
exercise about receiving other priorities for consideration
So, thank you. Thank you for coming. Um, and I guess
I guess quickly in terms of assembling interest in
stakeholders, are there other um by show hands. Are
there other people in the room for which this is a
uh an item of interest?
Okay. So, so that's excellent. Uh one other um and, and
if we want to talk a little bit more about whether
or not there should be a party we can do. So one
other bad on my part. I think that uh uh presently
the way that I should have surfaced, uh the way that
I should have prefaced this, this first phase of the
the workshop and I did not was um are there any legislative
implementation items from the 88th Session that we
should have higher up on the to do list? And then a
little bit later in the workshop, we'll have other
non legislative priorities. And so this was, I did
not clarify. So that's exactly the sort of feedback
that we're going to want um at that at the appropriate
time in this workshop. So no harm, no harm, no foul.
Did anyone have any um uh comments on whether or not
the suggestion that we just received is something that
should be brought up in the near future. And, and,
and the intention is not to get into the nitty gritty
about what the right solution is here necessarily.
But um whether or not it should be considered a priority
I mean? (item:3:Carrie Collier Brown with Alliance for Retail Markets on Project 54844, disconnection rules) Carrie Collier Brown with Alliance for Retail
Markets. And um we filed comments in Project 54844 with
some suggestions um on how to improve the disconnection
rules within that. Um And you know, we understand you
guys have a lot on your plate um and implementation
of um new legislation. But um you know, we think that
uh you know, there's, there's a way to, to make that
process better um for customers, REPs, TDUs. And that
it could be done fairly easily even if it's just, um
you know, jumping off the comments that we had proposed
in that other rule making. Okay. Excellent.
Do I have any, do I have any ones on this topic
on the price or the, uh, moratorium or? Oh, the electric
disconnection? Ok. Got you.
(item:3:Ned Boskoski with Vistra in agreement with mortarium) Uh, Ned Boskoski with Vistra. Um, we're a member of
ARM. So just as an, a housekeeping, uh, item. If I
could say ditto or support Carrie. I don't wanna belabor the
topic. Yeah. Ditto. We will do uh I will uh we
can do uh, I'll, I'll do the polling of the room like
I did before for you. Yeah, three can be ditto. A new protocol
was born. The but the, but the Boskoski option is
three for ditto. Okay. So uh on to the topic uh back
to the other legislative items from the 88th that should
be considered for, um, immediate treatment. Ok. Uh
(item:3:Michelle Richmond with TX Competitive Power Advocates on reliability standard not reflected in list) Michelle Richmond, uh, Texas Competitive Power Advocates
and representing the 14 member companies of TCPA.
Um I don't know that it, I think it was probably unintentional
but the reliability standard is not anywhere on here.
And I know that that's in process, but that is a top
priority. And we really view that as you know, everything
else that you're implementing to a large extent is
going to flow from that. So we need to know what we're
actually solving for when we look at all of the other
market design um standards that, that y'all are gonna
be implementing. Um whether that's DRRS or you know
the performance credit mechanism or, you know, really
any other aspect of market design. And so we wanna
make sure that, that that remains a top priority that
that um is really kind of full speed ahead. Um But
because we have some significant concerns that without
a reliability standard that everybody knows and understands
um it's gonna be very hard to determine some of these
other aspects. Um And, and the implementation of those
So yeah, I think that's, that's good feedback. (item:3:David Smeltzer's comments on reliability standard) And
I would say that there, there are certain issues that
um uh I said projects that were ongoing prior to the
88th session unless you hear otherwise it's safe
to assume that they, they're still ongoing and in particular
the reliability standard and things related to the
PUC generally. Um I sort of view those as even above
my head. Because a lot of heavy Commissioner engagement
on that. So I'm agree with you and I'm, I, I suspect
that they view that as a top priority as well. Great
(item:3:Michelle Richmond on PUC directives) And then, um we just wanna make sure that the, the
component related to the PUC directives um is addressed
really early on in, in this bout of rule making because
again, that implement that implementation is gonna
be critical to, you know, market participants being
able to effectively engage um in the process and understand
what the the rules are. And you know, with the opinion
that says that protocols or rules subject to APA.
We want to understand what the processes are there
as well. Um And so, you know, those are, those are
some of the, the things and then you've mentioned the
the emergency pricing. And so we just very much support
making sure that the things from the 2021 Session are
at the very top to implement soon. Um Yeah, and, and
on that note, I will, I will say that the uh any
remaining items from the 87th session were not necessarily
included on this list, but they have, they uh are still
on our master lists and uh our items that we know that
we need to. Yeah, I if, if I can just draw your
attention. (item:3:Michelle Richmond on emergency pricing program) There's a component of the emergency pricing
program that I think gets kind of forgotten. And that's
the making sure that resource owners can, um, recoup
their, uh, verifiable, um, operating costs. That, that's
pretty important. And so you can make sure that, that
that is included in what you do with the emergency
pricing program. Agree. (item:3:Rama Rastogi with Commission Staff on 87th Session items) I think just to add to what
Smeltzer just said that the items from the 87th legislature
you would routinely now see on the rule making calendar
and that would be the place where you should follow.
It is still on our list and we're working through those
lists. But, but I would say that when we get to the
the, you know section, like if, if there's anything
lingering that you're like, no, this is, we need it
now. I want that to be a part of this discussion. That's
all one other um message from message from the box.
That I just got is as we're going through any items
from the 88th session. Um We, we do not uh have all
the bill numbers and content memorized. So to the extent
that you can referring to them by uh by their bill
number is helpful to us. It to facilitate this discussion
If I could encourage everyone who's speaking to speak
closer to the microphone. It's actually quite hard
to hear people who are facing away from us. And I can
only imagine what it's probably like the adminmonitor.
Thank you, agreed.
That, that's what I have. Continuing on with um some
comments that Michelle had and going in line with what
you have on your document for implementation along
with HB1500, Section 17 for ERCOT directives. Um it may
be good to consider also in that project implementation
of HB 1500, Section 15, which was the change to the
statute that talked about how protocols are not effective
until they're approved the Commission. And so then
that brings into the question, well, what is an approval
Is it a case? Is it a rule making? And that becomes
particularly important because of the third court's
opinion and the RWE case, which found that many of
the protocols can actually be ruled subject to the
APA. And the answers from that rule making. If you do
that sooner rather than later will help inform all
of the direction the Commission may feel like they
need to provide ERCOT in the implementation of the
reliability standard as well as in the PCM. Which
thanks for clarifying that those are priorities. Um
Even though we don't see them specifically listed.
Um And then the last thing that we would add is from
legislation, but at the same time may not necessarily
require rule making at least part of it. So in Senate
Bill 1699 the latter half of the bill talks about
the residential demand response schools in and also
talks about rep demand response programs being eligible
for receiving funding through TDU energy efficiency
programs. If it's possible that the latter part of
that, the funding through the EE programs is something
that can be done either in the energy efficiency, implementation
planning process or in another forum that wouldn't
necessarily require rule making, then that would be
helpful and might also alleviate some of the burden
that you all as the Commission have in terms of rule
making. So I will, I will flag that as a concrete proposal
for something that doesn't need a rule making. Is there
anyone else who would like to address the topic of
whether or not uh the TDU program can be implemented?
not through rulemaking or through the E IP process
Well, I was just gonna raise 1699 as something for
you guys to add in your maybe in the first priority
both because it implements some of the virtual power
plans and um the pilot program that you have ongoing.
There are some specific statutory changes there, most
of which I don't think will require rule making. They're
really just clarifying, for example, that REPs don't
have to register as power generation companies if they're
involved in DER or pilot projects. But there may be
some other aspects that might need rule making. But
then there is another aspect of that bill involving
both setting some goals for residential, DR uh And
as, as um Christina said, um I get people's names all
wrong all the time. Um I think I got your name right
which is good for me. Um as you said, um also allows
money from the energy efficiency programs of utilities
to be used for REP programs, um you know, kind of a
directive or, and given that those, that the companies
that run those programs that's being discussed right
now through the ECRFs for 2024. And this has a deadline
of kind of 2024. So it's, I don't know if it requires
rule making or not. I'm not really a patenting on this
but we at least need a project opened on it to have
those discussions. And then generally, as you know
and I raised this before the Commission has said they
want to look at the energy efficiency programs in general
There was a series of stakeholder meetings through
the EIP. There's some sense that that will lead to
rule making. I don't know the timing of that, but all
these things are related to each other. So to the extent
we want to open up a project or end our rule making
on the energy efficiency programs and specifically
on residential DR. I think that would be a good thing.
And I would argue it's, it's a, it should be, it's
a priority for me. I think it should be a priority
for you. So now is the time to make those arguments
So I'm making the argument prioritize that I again
I can't, I don't know whether all aspects of that need
rule making or more discussions but um we can cross
that bridge when we get there. Yes. So the thought
about the um DR program TDU Energy efficiency funding
connection, possibly being done without rule making
project is that it could expedite at least that part
of the statute and where you would set up programs
that would be able to help facilitate meeting the goals
And so the goals themselves will probably be a rule
making project. But given the laundry list of things
that you all have to do, we understand as time and
resources permit, we do think it is an important thing
to add, but we just don't know where in the, in the
list of things that you have that you'll be able to
add it. Ok. So I'm gonna say that there are, there
are currently at least two, two discussion points on the
topic and one is whether or not um the residential
programs can be done without uh without a rulemaking
The second is uh the contention. This, this should
be a priority. So uh one's on either of those topics
(item:3.3:Ned Boskoski with Vistra on SB1699) Ned Boskoski with Vistra. I'm trying to speak close to
the mic. Um Let's keep me honest if this is too, too
quiet. Um So first off, I, I agree largely with uh
with how Christina framed it, there are provisions
in SB1699 that can possibly be implemented more quickly
And Cyrus, I think you, you correctly noted that the
ADER pilot does not, does not necessarily need a
rule change in order to continue to move forward. But
those changes were really clarifications that were
aligned with it. So again, agree with Christina
that the Commission can prioritize that as, as resources
allow. Although there's certainly interest in, in getting
uh some clarity along those lines. Um And then just
so I can, you know, kind of finish my piece and probably
back up and, and yield the floor. (item:3:Ned Bosonski with Vistra on Project 55156) Um I did wanna highlight
um you know, Vistra did file comments in project 55146
or sorry 156, 55156. Thank you. Uh We filed those
yesterday. Um So those are there for your review and
I think the comments are generally consistent with
y'all have laid out. Um You know, we, we highlight
the need to, as Michelle mentioned, uh clear out some
of those issues from the 87th legislation, legislative
session, including the emergency pricing program, the
um you know, to the extent that the um the reliability
standard is ongoing, we support that uh that effort
uh the PCM effort and getting clarity on the implementation
plan for that we support um as well as the bridge solution
which I know the Commission has already asked ERCOT
to uh provide a recommendation for and is sitting before
them. So, um we support all of those activities and
then I, I really appreciate it that you highlighted
at the outset David, um the RPS wind down and there
were a few decision points on that, that, that we tried
to at least highlight in our comments, um including
you know, how do you deal with a solar only RPS that
applies to the entire RPS goal? And is that, you know
all 2023 is it only part of 2023? How do you step
that down? And what do you do with compliance premiums
which are really a deferral of an RPS obligation and
make sure that that winds down um appropriately within
the time frame. Um And then the, you already noted
the 180 day timeline on the uh transmission
interconnection cost allocation. So I will pause there
and say thank you are now going to all look side eyes
at Ned a little bit for expanding beyond the 1699
discussion point that was currently on the table. I
was trying to it up. No, no, those were all previously
mentioned items. So we'll consider them fair as there
are other folks on the 1699 discussion. And David just
shortly um Rashma on behalf of the team. Um We just kind
of want to say that we also agree with and I
missed the other person names comments. Um uh regarding
involvement in these programs, making them priority
and also um that they can be done outside the rule
making process.
ARMs in agreement with all of that. Three from ARM.
Ditto. Anyone else on this on the 1699 or related discussions?
But you're clear that part of it is gonna need rulemaking
Right. The 1699.
Right. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah, I, I, yeah, as I said
before, I'm, uh, trying to be on the record is on a
few things that I don't feel confident about in my
head right now. But, uh that is, yeah, that's probably
right. Um I believe Taylor is next. Um I actually wanted
to get back to one of Christina's first points on uh
ERCOT directives and thank you for bringing that up
and that uh that will probably need to be more than
just ERCOT directives. It'll be helpful to have more
of a feel for what the protocol uh approval process
works like. Um (item:3:ERCOT Board changes) Adding to that again, uh I did note
that uh the ERCOT Board has changed dramatically in
the past few years uh with Senate Bill 2 in particular.
uh the PUCs rules have not kept up with that
Uh particularly 25362 still refers to unaffiliated
affiliated directors. And so fixing that as a matter
of carryover from the 87th would be helpful, uh particularly
that's important given now that ERCOT has, is entitled
to sovereign immunity. Um The Texas Supreme Court based
that on uh the P ECs complete authority over ERCOT
and if the PUCs rules don't apply to the way ERCOT
is structured. Now, we'd be curious as to whether or
not there's a disconnect there. And so we'd advocate
that that also be expanded to include a revision of
kind of the way the way uh PUC oversees a generally
the ERCOT Board particularly. Excellent and we're gonna give
extra points for both the specific bill number and
a specific rule number. So uh well done TPPA and yeah
I think that, that, that cluster of questions are questions
that we need to start addressing now that we have more
specific guidance from the legislature. And I think
that I don't have it off hand, but the current project
that is labeled a governance and related issues or
whatever that's been on the, the pending list on the
rule making calendar is where, where all that is presently
intended to be housed. Um But uh that's a, that's a
good catch.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak on the topic
of ERCOT directives or other related ERCOT governance
items?
Well, the, the only thing I'd add is on um section
22 the dispatch, reliability reserve services, obviously
you know, you have been given a very specific directive
on timing on that and I know has already come forward
with a couple different options. Um And, you know,
we're obviously supportive of that moving forward but
still opening up a project and making sure it's clear
what the procedure is. And how that's implemented.
It is going to be important vis a vis the protocols
et cetera. So just having clarity on that, I think
will be important going forward.
(item:3.7:Shana Joyce with TXOGA on ERCOT directive) This is Shana Joyce with TXOGA. And um once again, I
agree with Cyrus on that. Um I think that opening up
the um ERCOT directive is important before we began a lot of these
other rule makings and it's especially important for
DRS, which is important to our members.
And so I, I
granted, I, I'm trying to decide what is pro commentary
not because I think it is, it, it. (item:3.7:David Smeltzer on ERCOT directive) It may be unlikely
that we get through an entire ERCOT directive rule making
prior to the need to start taking action on DRS. But
I, I take the comments to be that there is a significant
interest in how people can participate and contribute
to the outcomes in the DRS rule making. And so I that
can be flagged as a issue for consideration by the
Commissioners. Uh So thank you for your, in our comments
We noted that um if there is a need to do something
in the interim with DRS, because they can't under that
time frame, do a full scale that doesn't prevent them
from moving forward in the future or making changes
so you could implement something sooner, but then also
look at any other changes that were needed in the future
So we have indeed uh proven a willingness to, to phase
no commitment on this one, but I understood it.
ERCOT governance, ERCOT directive related comments?
Uh Taylor TPPA, again, I just wanted to flag we had
that conversation earlier with Michelle about carryover
things from previous years. Uh real time marketization is not mentioned
in here. That is obviously a prerequisite for PCM implementation
And so we would hope that that would also be considered
a priority even though it's already been uh approved
by the Commission several years ago. Is that something
(item:3.7:David Smeltzer on TPPA's comments on rulemaking) I'm pulling up the thinking out loud. I know it's dangerous
It is, as I said in prior prior workshops, uh we're
not all like West Wing members, so we don't have the
full roll of everything right away. Is that something
where TPPA is recommending that we need rule making action
in order to proceed on or no? Yes, it is for sure
Right. It is. Uh I have not reviewed 503, 25503 recently.
To see what that would require uh the general kind
of follow what ERCOT needs you to do. Uh Chances are
probably be accomplished just at ERCOT. But while we're
talking about DRRS and maybe we need to do rules at
both.
I hesitate to say the word agency. Uh both PUC and
ERCOT, uh RTC might require some of the similar actions.
And I saw some various nodding in different directions
So we'll just, if there are real time co optimization
related uh implementation comments. Uh there is an open
PUC rule making project for real time co optimization.
Um I think that was pending, you know, getting closer
to the go live of the gray box language that the ERCOT
board has already approved. And I know is reinitiating
their uh real time optimization implementation plan
So that would probably be something I suspect would
be closer to, to go live where you would want to have
those line up. Absolutely.
Um One other thought and this is again, at the risk
of, of thinking on the fly and, and in, in front of
a camera and a live studio audience. Um if you just
say off the record, then, well, you know, from a directive
standpoint, the Commission may want to consider directives
that the legislature has directed the commission to
give to ERCOT versus directives that uh that, you know
the Commission gives independently to ERCOT, there
may be some distinction there to, to think through
I don't have a formal recommendation but,
and I uh the, the powers that be, have said that in
in, in most cases, folks have been good about identifying
the organization, but in a few cases that hasn't been
the case. So if you, for the first time when you come
to the mic, uh make sure that you remind us of uh
who you're with. If you're, if you're representing
anyone, I believe the open topics now are ERCOT directives
ERCOT governance, DRS and real time co-optimization. Uh
keep this tightly organized. Are there any uh comments
on any of these. (item:3.9:ARM's comments on changes in ancillary services) Um on the DRRS um which is House
Bill 1500, Section 40 for ARM's from ours perspective
I think the main thing that we want to highlight there
is that any changes in Ancillary service um uh services
drive increased costs for REPs. And that our hope is
that the, the PUC would recognize that under the customer
protection role, which is 25.475B 5. That was
amended a couple of years ago. So I just wanted to
mention that part in the conversation of DRRS changes
Yeah. And I, I think that are
again, thing I fly from, from what I recall that
(item:3.9:David Smeltzer response to ARM) I think it was always the, it appeared to be if I
remember the Commission's intention was that when a
REP thinks or when the REP community thinks that, that
standard is met, such that it justifies the adjustment
of fixed rate tax contracts that the onus would be
on you guys in that project to come tell us. And so
we will um we will consider that but uh uh in the
course of that rule making is that I don't know if
it would be in the course of the rule making or afterwards.
But um uh I encourage you to be diligent in your contacts
with us on that to the extent it is a priority. But
I understand what you're saying? Thank you.
I was waiting for like a specific tee up above something
that got mentioned, but it wasn't in your official
teeing up. So let me know when I can
address their contracts. That's right. Uh I dodged
you there. Um, well, you're the only one that do you
have anything on the current topics? Um yeah, so something
that was mentioned. (item:3:ARM's thoughts on RPS) Was the, um, clarification on, uh
the RPS, which is um House Bill 1500, Section 53. I
think. Um I just want to say that we, we think that
the clarification of the um compliance for this year
can be done without a rule making. And then of course
you know, a rule making for the, the rest of it um
can be done. But we, we're, we're working on that um
with y'all and, and um hope to have some consensus
Excellent. Thanks. And I, I hope that that's true because
we certainly can't get it all done that quickly. Um
Is anyone on any of the current topics?
All right. So just as a reminder that aside from the
four topics, I just listed the global discussion right
now. (item:3:David Smeltzer confirming if any other bills from 88th Session be added to list) Is on whether or not there are any bills from the
88th Session that merit immediate or urgent attention
and the Staff's recommendation to the Commissioners
on how they should prioritize projects. Um
I see the floor is cleared. So I'm going to presume
that anyone who has anyone in the room today who has
priorities from the 88th that they would like to advocate
for has done so
excellent.
Uh And so the next prompt on the memo is, uh, does
anyone else have any recommendations on things that
have been, you know, you know, we aired on the side
of including things on the list, um rather, rather
than not, but if anyone has any um advocacies or anything
they'd like to recommend right now that they think
is on the lists that do not require rule making or
can maybe be done. Um Either the statute provides sufficient
direction to go off of for the time being or can be
done through our co directive or some other means.
If there are any recommendations of that time of that
type, uh now would be a good time to come for it
This is the David can do less work category. So gold
stars for any um recommendations in this area, Taylor
I think you may be one. (item:3:TPPA on Senate Bill 1093) Yes, sir. So uh Senate Bill 1093
is the one that requires uh MOUs, Co-ops and uh
the investor-owned to provide maps to the Commission
by September, by September. Um I think y'all are progressing
on the right way to not require rule making for that
deadline. Um I understand y'all are working on some
guidance material to let us know who to submit to.
Thank you. That's great. Uh The second thing that that
bill does is allow again MOUs, Co-ops and investor
and utilities access to their portion of the map on
request. Um Any sort of guidance that you could provide
on how we make that request is that request to you
Is that request to uh would be really helpful. And
that's obviously not a rule making. That is a uh memo
probably I don't think I should be texting them kid
about it. And so uh help, there would be great. The
uh I'm gonna wait to see if there wants to peer pressure
and if she doesn't, I will.
As Liz's primary role at this workshop is volume control,
we will give Therese priority on.
(item:3:Therese Harris with PUC on SB1093)All right there, Therese Harris PUC. So thank you Taylor for
that question. We actually have already gotten a request
from one of the utilities and it as simple as that.
So SB1093 lines out what needs to happen before the
request is made. And that would be, you know, submission
of your service area boundary map. After that, you
can contact the infrastructure division and we can
work with you to develop that map. So it would be a
map. It would be just your service area boundary and
it would have only the facilities that are in your
service area boundary that are critical natural gas
facilities and we have that done and ready. What we're
waiting on is to get the MOU and the, the MOU signed
between the Railroad Commission and ERCOT. And that is forthcoming
I think that's going to happen relatively soon and
as soon as that happens, you're good to go. And so
that request and I swear, I said preplanned. Uh does
that go to just infrastructure@puc.texas.
gov or? Well, so we are, we are opening a project and
that will probably be filed on Friday. You know, it
will have a letter explaining how to submit your electric
service area boundary map. We will follow that opening
of a control number with a letter out to the entities
so that they get double notice. Um I think another
thing that we plan to do is also to reach out to
you and reach out to um the individual in charge of
the Texas Electric Cooperatives. And they can also
and you can also, you know, disseminate as you would
like. Thank you. I know I've been a pain about this
but I really do. No, you know, you're not, you're not
a pain. I've been a pain.
So we are dealing with other state agencies. So, no
hang on. Everyone knows what needs to happen and we're
gonna make it happen and we already have one map completed
ready to go as soon as the um MOU assigned. Thank you.
(item:3:Liz Jones with Oncor on NDAs) And that was the only thing I was gonna add and, and
I think it's actually a nondisclosure agreement but
whatever we're calling it, um
the Railroad Commission and ERCOT have not agreed on
the language and I'm not sure what the Railroad Commission
concerns are, but given that we all have an existing
NDA with ERCOT. I'm at an utter loss as to the
delay. But Therese, are you the right person to come
back to you and ask for an escalation? Because, you
know, we need this information and I think we're entitled
to this information and it's a source of frustration
that you don't feel like you can give it to us at
this time based on other agency activities. Right.
No activities of other agents. Right. Right. Right
(item:3:Therese Harris, PUC on NDAs) Yes, please, you know, go ahead and reach out to me
Um, I would involve, you know, Tom Hunter and Casey
Feldman who are, you know, our General Counsel. So
um, that would occur too and I've been working with
Casey. Thank you. Okay.
The two important takeaways from this conversation
are what, you know, I've said it many times, the less
I'm involved, the quicker things get taken care of
So that's fantastic. And also everyone may or may not
know. I used to, I used to work for Taylor in the
first division and that might be the first time. He's
called me, sir at the beginning of this. So I just
take a moment to appreciate that we are on camera.
Um, okay. Is there anything else, uh Taylor, are you
done with your item? I have one more thing but not
it's different. Does anyone have any other discussion
related to the ability to request maps that Therese
and Liz and Taylor were just discussing?
Okay. Uh So, yeah, so thank you for pulling this list
up. Actually, when we were reviewing this list, we
did flag that everything on here are, are bills. Uh
(item:3:TPPA on non statutory directives) We did note that the Sunset Commission also issued
several management non statutory directives to PUC.
Some of those are just procedural post open meeting
minutes. Um Allow testimony on all agenda items. Some
are a little more substantive. One of them, for instance
to Michelle's point earlier is for the PUC to establish
a liability standard by May of 2023, 2 months ago. Um
And, and so our kind of question is, are you all expecting
to uh get a lot of those management nonsmoking process
or um should we be saying, you know, this might need
a rule making, this might need a role and this might
need a rule making. (item:3:David Smeltzer on non statutory directives) I think that in our review, we
uh uh we're, we're pulling to get, get this together
pretty quickly. And I don't know that, that I specifically
thought through exhaustively the management recommendations
And as you guys know, we're working to implement a
lot of those not through the rule making process. Or
for instance, our Chapter 26 rule review is much more
significant than it would have been otherwise. But
um yeah, to the extent that uh we'll go back and look
over that, but to the extent that you think that there
are items that um uh definitely need rule makings from
those management directives. Um, feel free to file
a note on that or uh, let me know. Awesome. Thank you
That is a, that is an excellent reminder.
Awesome. (item:3:John Russ Hubbard with Texas Industrial Energy Consumers on DRS) John Russ Hubbard on behalf of Texas Industrial
Energy Consumers. Um I just wanted to reiterate the
point you made earlier about DRS. We don't believe
that needs a rule making and it can be done through
a Commission directive.
Thank you. I'm sure. Sure. Yeah. Um (item:3.5:Shana Joyce with TXOGA on HB5066) Shana with TXOGA.
I wanted to bring up um HB5066 regarding transmission
in the Permian Basin and this requires the development
of a reliability plan for the Permian Basin. And while
we don't necessarily think that you need a rule making
for this, we are concerned about stakeholders voices
in this process. Um And we'd also request that the
reliability plan be based on the demand forecast that
was developed in the SNPIHS market study that was
published in March of this year. And so with the increased
electrification of our industry and the adequacy of
high voltage for the serving the needs of oil and natural
gas for our state. Um the Permian Basin and other areas
of high growth are paramount to our state. So we wanted
to make sure that this process is robust and implementing
this bill. But don't necessarily think that you need
a rule making, but stakeholder, stakeholder input is
imperative.
I failed to introduce myself. Sorry. (item:3.5:Liz Jones with Oncor on supporting initiative) Liz Jones with
Oncor. We recognize and support that initiative and
it doesn't take a rule making. But I think a workshop
that is widely noticed to both, um, retail customers
in the Permian Basin and also the utilities that serve
them would be very beneficial to talk through what
that might look like. I think that's right. Would you
um, in my head just out of, you know, bucketing things
that we've talked about how doing a workshop on that
and a workshop on res the resiliency stuff. But those
are,
uh are those, those are not addressing something? Would
you recommend that that can be a, a one day affair
This is sufficiently distinct that we shouldn't be
thinking about them in the same bucket. I think they're
sufficiently different. But if you wanted, you could
do morning and afternoon, I was thinking that I think
they're different. But if you wanted to split the days
I think, but making sure that you give ample time to
both of the important topics. Um And is this, uh
with regards to the reliability plan, is there enough
(item:3.5:David Smeltzer's follow-up to Oncor) It sounds like there's enough specific content out
there where maybe even prior to getting feedback from
the Commissioners on orders and things like that, we
we opened up a project. Are there immediate recommendations
or studies that would make sense? To be filed right
away that we can start looking at. So, although it's
somewhat dated. Oncor actually sponsored an IHS study
that was issued in 2020. And I believe both that and
the producer study would provide a foundation on which
to have this discussion. I agree with that.
So I, I that is a reasonable enough suggestion that
I feel comfortable saying that uh that uh I think we
can look into opening a project number so that interested
parties can start populating it with uh foundational
background documents and knowledge so that we can even
without a rule making so that we can act swiftly. And
I think to the extent that stakeholders want to be
involved, that seems that seems appropriate. Yes, sir
Yes. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. Thank you. (item:3.5:Larry Linenschmidt with Hill Country Institute on HB5066) My name is Larry Linenschmidt. I'm with
the Hill Country Institute, a Christian nonprofit.
Uh We're very interested in creation care including
uh how power is generated, transmitted and used. And
uh House Bill 5066 specifically addresses the Permian
Basin, but it also is open to needs in the rest of
the state. And uh we have, you know, during Winter
Storm Uri. We had 5000 megawatts of energy that we
couldn't get from South Texas to where it was needed.
I hope that, that that 5066 will open the door to
expand transmission lines in the state. Uh We've had
very limited amount of transmission lines built in
the last few years. And as you direct ERCOT and their
underwriting and their methodology, I hope the door
will open because it takes several years and we're
already behind where we should be. So I work with a
number of groups including the citizens climate lobby
the republican, and, uh, and others. And we're all
very hopeful that this bill and your general knowledge
of the need for more transmission lines will open up
the door for more to be built in Texas. Yes, sir. Thank
you. Thank you.
(item:3.5:David Smeltzer comments on Permian Basin) Um I guess as long as we're on the topic, are there
additional, um uh
is there any additional uh commentary on either reliability
plans? The uh which I think eventually will need a
rule making? But uh on the Permian Basin, uh well,
we'll see on the Permian Basin, immediate directive
ERCOT to develop reliability plan or the resiliency
plan, um pieces of legislation. (item:3.4:Rama Rastogi on HB2555) So I just wanna add
the resiliency plan that David is mentioning is HB2555.
If anyone has a comment on that,
very good. And I think, yeah, and, and on both of those
those are sufficiently complex technical topics and
it seems uh likely that we'll have want to have a technical
workshop of some kind on those, but uh we'll, we'll
see uh how things are structured. Um Okay. I think we
are on the still on the, the global topic of items
that folks want to advocate for that might be on the
list but might not need a rule making. Um, is there
any other, um, is there anyone else who wants to speak
to any of these?
And in particular on this topic when, when we say that
we've expanded the, the, the comment deadline for a
couple of days, uh, these, these, these are the sorts
of efficiencies that are, that are very helpful to
us. I mean, in, in the next topic on the menu is
another on the, you know, on the agenda is also comfortable.
(item:3:David Smeltzer on natural pairings) That to the extent that there are natural pairings
I think, you know, last legislative session, a lot
of our to do items came from SB3and it was
uh uh sort of a chunk of legislation that sort of directed
things. And I think this time there's HB1500 but there's
a lot of like numerically, there are more bills in
play than before. And so one of the other questions
is if you think that there are natural pairings between
topics that can be addressed together, that is another
piece of advice that we would find helpful both either
today or if anyone behind the scenes is like, here's
the master plan. This is how you get it all done at
once. Um That is, that is always helpful and it is
possible because if you read the whole memo, we are
trying to do all of the telecom stuff in one rule.
So if the electric industry can get together and match
that, that will be, that will be very helpful to us
But is there, is there anyone that has anything on
these topics?
Ok. So I think that brings us to the, um,
so I think that brings us to the sort of grab bag
topic. (item:3:David Smeltzer on rulemaking calendar) Which is, um, you know, our, our rule making
calendar even, even the last two years when we are
really busy and even the next two years when we're
really busy from time to time Commission Staff opens
up rules in relation to real world ex agencies or Commissioner
directive or just other known issues out in the world
And so I'd like now like to open up the floor to
any items that, you know, as we face down the 40th
or so rule making that we may have to do coming out
of the session. Are there other items of interest that
folks want to that folks believe the Commissioner should
consider as important or more important than some of
the legislative implementation? So we've had some discussion
of, we had some discussion already of the emergency
weather, the weather disconnection, moratoriums. And
I think that, um, I think, I think that some of Cyrus
energy efficiency recommendations go beyond the scope
of what's strictly required by, um, by legislation
And so I think those two items are there, but are there
other, are there other rule making priorities or policy
priorities that folks would like to soapbox about briefly
(item:3.1:John Ross Hubbard, TIEC on interconnection timelines)John Ross Hubbard on behalf of TIEC during the Oncor rate
case, there are a number of issues about interconnections
and interconnection timelines. Um And, and that probably
requires opening up the proform tariff. And so doing
that while doing some of the CCN changes could be a
good fit. Um So specifically with Project 55153 or
potentially when implementing 5066.
Does anyone have any, does anyone want to address the
possibility of opening up the performer tariff or the
issue of interconnection timeline just generally?
Okay. And we will um if we have specific questions or
if the Commissioners, do we know where to find you
to continue the discussion? Thank you. Bye.
(item:3:Mark Walker with Matthews & Freeland on advanced metering rule) Hi, I'm Mark Walker. I'm with Matthews and Freeland
and I have a new client Mission Data. I wasn't planning
on saying anything today, but given that we've kind
of opened the scope up a little bit. I thought it'd
be remiss not to. And you'd ask, well, why didn't you
say something about this issue? And that is about advanced
advanced metering rule. Uh We believe there are the
technology has kind of outstripped the current rule
and a lot of the implementation of the, the usability
and functionality of advanced meters. And we think
it's timely given all the other changes and the benefits
that a fully functional and you know, superiorly, you
know, a better functioning uh advanced meter process
would be beneficial. Uh It's also timely given that
there are some of the utilities are starting, I believe
starting to look at the second generation of deployments
And so it's timely to, to understand if there are any
changes we need to make, to ensure the next generation
is going to fully capture that capability and support
all the other objectives of the Commission. And I also
want to be clear that nothing that we would be proposing
would have any, any impact on already approved plans
So, um no, no darts from Excel. Um They uh so anyway
and also apologies to stakeholders. I have plans to
come meet with, we, you know, we plan to come visit
with folks before and obviously with the, with the
Commission Staff as well, right? Um Given that you
you've opened the floor here, I, I felt like I needed
to chime in. No. Yeah, and uh that's great. Yeah, getting
an idea of the issue, landscape and things that might
be coming to us that are not yet fully formed is helpful
for our planning purposes. So do I, should I take that
last comment to mean this is a heads up but that you
might be approaching with something more concrete in
the future. That's right. We're working on the specifics
now and we'll, you know, you, you're top of my list
and we will uh as soon as we and, and I, you
know, I, we certainly plan to, to, to work collaboratively
with uh with other stakeholders and be clear about
what we're looking for and to hear other perspectives
But we do think it's a vitally important and, and should
be a priority for the commission as well. Ok. Thank
you. I'd just like to add that, you know, any synergies
that you can identify for the, the A MS with the current
legislative, uh you know, list of things that we have
that would be helpful to us. Like if you can pre identify
something that can be synergistic or paired with something
else that we are already planning to do.
Thank you. Great suggestion. Thank you.
The floor is open and we have 51 remaining scheduled
minutes where people can ask for whatever they want
anybody have anything.
All right. Um
Yeah, yeah, sure, sure.
Um Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. (item:4.2:Tina Lee, VP of Watt Bridge Energy on SB2627) Uh So Tina Lee, I'm
Vice President of Watt Bridge Energy. Um And as you
may have heard my uh CEO speak during the legislative
session, Watt Bridge has built out a portfolio of 2400
megawatts of uh fast start dispatch gas generation
during the last three years and raised $2 billion for
this initiative. So just trying to provide, given that
experience, I like to provide some feedback on SB2627
on the Texas Energy Fund. On the first item is just
the loan program timing. We agree with staff's plans
to complete the draft rule making before the November
election. On the constitutional amendment, we also
agree and encourage the PUC to adopt the final rule
making no later than January 2024 upon a favorable
November vote outcome. Faster implementation helps
to avoid risks related to long lead equipment and better
preserves the value um intended in the Texas Energy
Fund. On the second point of the loan mechanics, um
Watt Bridge plans to apply for both the loan and the
completion bonus. Um Having only one or the other will
be detrimental to Watt Bridge's proposed build out
under the Texas Energy Fund. Based on our evaluation
the split between the loan and completion bonus. If
you're looking for allocation of how to use the fund
is approximately 86% and 14% respectively for a more
efficient use of the equity. We also recommend that
the 3% escrow amount be satisfied with a letter of
credit in lieu of cash, only, letters of credit are
standard and commercially available approach. We also
support the mortgage style repayment of the loan. Um
All project costs including natural gas, water infrastructure
land procurement design engineering should be eligible
within the construction costs. Uh The the loan program
fees can be deducted from the 3% escrow amount and
we seek review and selection of the loan applications
on a rolling basis will allow projects to meet the
intended in service date of summer 2026 and on the
final point of the Texas Energy Fund Administration
if the fund is not going to be able to provide the
letters of credit capacity, which is standard and typical
in debt financing. Um then we then we recommend allowing
commercial bank involvement to provide that LC capacity
in parallel with the loan program. And then for more
efficient optimization of the new asset, we recommend
that the state share the first lean position with potential
hedge counter parties. This is actually a very standard
uh project or approach and all six of watt bridges
hedged projects have this structure in place. And then
finally, we recommend outsourcing the administration
of the Texas Energy Fund to commercial banks to leverage
their infrastructure and to accelerate the implementation
Thank you. So, so I think the one, thank you. Those
are helped comments. (item:4.2:David Smeltzer's response to Watt Bridge) The one that I I would like to
solicit feedback on specifically with regard to our
implementation schedule is there was a request that
the final rule making be adopted by, by January of
2024. And I think that given when the given, when the
election takes place, that is a real holiday killer
for, for my team. But in terms of the real world practicalities
of when you know, so we have to begin accepting applications
in June at the latest under the legislation. And I
know that we want to get the draft out there prior
to the November election. But does anyone want to comment
on real world implications of when this rule is adopted
Like so her contention is that it will help reduce
risk if it's the final rule is adopted by January.
Does anyone have a formed position on that topic that
might help us in scheduling our activities? And if
you weren't expecting that question today, that's fine
But if anyone has a views on that, that is certainly
relevant to our implementation calendar discussion
Well, if you, if you come to have views on that topic
do let me know because I, I do not, I do not
build power plants. So I do not know all of the real
world uh practicalities that, that you guys face. Um
So thank you.
Are there any other um policy priorities or timing
implementation issues or anything within the purview
of this workshop that folks would like to discuss at
this time?
(item:3.8:Johnny Carlock with Pioneer Natural Resources on HB1500, Section 22) Good afternoon. Uh Johnny Carlock with Pioneer Natural
Resources. I would like to request. Is there a possibility
of getting a workshop? We've got several Bills, both
House and Senate uh related to generation and part
of the issue even with Senate Bill 2627. Is there
a potential interaction between uh House Bill 1500,
Section 22 and also the multiple sections relative
to renewable energy credits? So I guess the question
is as far as the timing and the implementation, are
there, is there potential for unintended consequences
for implementing something that may impact one of those
other um areas?
(item:3.8:David Smeltzer's comments to Pioneer Natural) That is probably a good question that we can take under
consideration. I, I don't have an off the cuff response
and, and, and I guess just as an end user in the
Permian Basin, all of these potentially impact us,
I mean, right now we are working through some of this
legislation addressed um the actual uh wires of the
transmission and the substation infrastructure at some
point in time as the forecast that loads start coming
online, we we have seeing the potential for a generation
shortfall. And so the question here is long term planning
what is the overall holistic plan from a generation
standpoint to ensure that the generation is there once
the wires issues are resolved. So just backing up to
answer your question, how as an end user do we get
some type of vision on what is the overall plan looking
at the interaction of all of these different implementations.
That is a, that is a good and complicated question.
And if anyone has a position on the overall plan, but
behind the interaction of all these pieces, it would
now would be now would be the time to lay out the
the master. No, that, that is a good question and I'm
only making light of it because it's such a difficult
question. Um And uh uh thank you. Thank you for posing
and I don't have a off the cuff response. Okay. Thank
you.
Pending no other last minute comments. (item:3:David Smeltzer closes workshop) I want to thank
everyone for coming today. We've had a lot of, you
know, we have dozens and dozens of bills to analyze
and we have dozens of rule makings ahead of us. So
I think that given the given that there are fewer statutory
deadlines this time, we're going to try and have more
of these types of events on specific policy topics
that we can as long as folks believe that they are
helpful and productive. And I'm always open to process
feedback behind the scenes. If you think there are
ways the Staff can be processing or handling these
things better, so free to reach out to me. Um Thank
you for your participation and I'm sure that the Commissioners
and some Legislators were watching and will find this
input very valuable in determining the way that the
Commission should proceed in its rule making agenda
I, I guess we can reclaim the rest of the time. Thanks
for coming.