And then after you’ve voted, if you would go back on mute, that would keep things quiet for us on the Webex. Should the audio or meeting in unexpectedly, please log back in using the same Webex information posted to the meeting page. And if there’s an issue with the current Webex information, we’ll distribute a new log in via the tackless serve and we’ll get that posted as quickly as possible to. And Caitlin and Martha, you all have quorums. So whenever you’re ready.

Okay. All right. Good morning. It’s August 26th. This is our regular August CAC meeting. We are not in person as Brittany said, but hopefully we will be in October. There’s no September meeting. The antitrust is on the screens to avoid raising concerns about antitrust liability. Participants in or COD activities should refrain from proposing any action or measure that would exceed our COPS authority under federal state or state law. And there’s more information on the website.

For all reps and proxies today, in the consumer segment, the commercial rep Chris Brewster for City of Eastlands was given his proxy to Beth Garza in the cooperative segment. Likewise from Golden Spread has alt-rep Joe Dan Wilson. John Packard for STEC has alt-reps Lucas Turner. In the independent power marketer segment, resume has alt-rep Shane Thomas. And we have a newly seated, same person, Ian Haley returns now for Trafigura Trading.

Newly seated this month. And in the IREP segment, Bill Barnes for Reliance has given his proxy to Jen Schmidt. In the municipal segment, David Key for CPS has given his alt-rep to Diana Goldman.

Is that all of them, Brittany?

Or do we have any last minute?

Okay. I don’t have any last minute. Right, theme of the month.

We, this month it is our very special ex-officio member, Keith Collins.

Can you tell us what the theme for August is?

All right, so yes, I can cover the theme of the month for this month. It is for you that have kids, a special time of year as they head back to school. And so I have three and they’re all in school.

Started just a couple of weeks ago. And so again, it’s a wonderful time of year to have them back in school. So I imagine that, you know, for our theme, if we were to have a break, which may or may not happen, but if we were to have one, we would go to recess, right? So, and so that I think is a great way to think about, there are lots of potential options on how we may think about the school things we remember from our past. Now, one thing I will note, if you were to wander the halls of, you know, the schools today, they use a very curious dialect and lingo that we may not understand. And so I’ll give you an example of this quickly. So for instance, you may think of folks that, from your past, like Ferris Bueller or James Dean, and you might say, those are really cool people, right? But they don’t say that anymore, right? They use a term like infinity aura. And so what does infinity aura mean? Well, you can Google it and I have done that for us. Then it says, someone with limitless amount of coolness, presence, or effortless charm. So in addition to school terms, we can use slang that our school kids would use. So again, Skibiddy, Riz, Ohio, let’s go back to school. Thanks everybody.

All right, Keith, that was quite the intro, but the theme is kids playing?

Back to school. Things they would say at school. The theme is back to school. The theme is back to school, and that can include things that kid would say in school or things about school. Thanks. Awesome. I think it’s a little too hot. It’s a recess. Ned, 6-7 is over, right? Because the New York Times, the New Yorker wrote about it. So it’s over. Oh no, it’s still there.

All right. Okay, back to school. All right, so next month, if we were in the room, we would go around the circle.

Municipally owned utilities. Can you guys do October, Diana? Yes. I’m saying yes for you. All right.

Okay, so we’ll, and so in October, we will do the municipal utilities. We’ll do the same as a month. And this month, the same, it’s back to school, which makes sense. It’s back to school. All right, moving on with the agenda. First, our meeting minutes. We’re looking to approve the July 29th meeting minutes as presented.

Ned doesn’t have any edits. Susie, do we have any other edits?

Or not Susie, Brittany. Brittany, do we have any other edits? To the meeting minutes? I didn’t receive any, no. Okay, so we are looking to approve the July 29th, 2026 meeting minutes as presented. Can we put that on the combo ballot?

Combo, awesome. I will need to get a couple of combos in the chat because I can’t feed head nods. Okay, now we are on to our meeting updates. We have not had any board or PUC open meetings where revision requests have been approved since our July meeting. We will have a board meeting in September and then one in December. But effectively, today’s a very special PAC because it’s the last PAC meeting for us to recommend things that will be fully approved by the end of the year. We have had some open meetings since the July PAC meeting, but I’d like to save discussion on BASH and transmission planning to that later section of the agenda. And I do believe staff has some other updates about PUC projects. Harika, are you there to give us those updates? Yes, Caitlin, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Okay, I have a short update. So I really wanna thank TAC for the state of the market annual workshop. As I said before, that will be really great if we do this every year. And before staff or ERCOT files responses, it’s really great to hear from the stakeholders and go to each individual recommendation. This year, we didn’t do that. We didn’t have time, but that will be great for the future years. That’s one feedback I have. The other one, I’m sure, I don’t know if you are familiar in the staff response to state of the market report, the project 34677 commission agreed with staff recommendation that the ASDC’s memo from 2019, restricting it to the ORDC results is no longer binding. And related to that in project 59550 review of TAC 25549 that requires us review every five years, all the offer caps and all the offer cap programs. So we added a question about ASDC’s in that as well. And I think the responses are due September 17. So please provide feedback again, 59550. And today we are also going to file a memo for the project 58555. This is answer to service cost allocation study required by PIRA. And we are going to have a workshop at September 22nd at the PUC, but we will file a memo with more details on that. That’s all I have.

Okay, thank you for those updates. Any questions or comments?

Right, I’m not seeing anything in the queue.

Thanks, Erika. We are now going to our review of revision request summaries, ERCOT market impact statements and opinions. And I will turn it over to Anne.

All right, thanks, Caitlin. This is Anne Bourne with ERCOT. So for revision request summary, we have a total of 14 revision requests for TAC consideration this month. For reason for revisions, we have 10 that are general system process improvements, two that are strategic plan objective one, one that is strategic plan objective two, and then one that is regulatory requirements. For impacts, I believe we have six that are known impact and then eight that do have impacts. I’ll highlight 1214. It does have that 900 to 1.2 million. And then 1338 has 750 to 1.25 million.

And we can take a look at those further in the PRS report. And then I’ll point out PGR 144 also has a one FTE impact.

ERCOT opinions and market impact statements. ERCOT does support all of the revision requests and have provided the positive market impact statements. No credit impacts for any of the NPRRs. And then the IMM does support 1214, which they do have comments on that one.

1337 also have comments on that one. And then 1342 and no opinion on the rest of the revision requests.

Okay. Caitlin, if you’re talking, we can’t hear you.

I was talking. Okay. All right. Let’s go to, let’s pretend that didn’t happen. Let’s go to the PRS report. Diana, let’s do these the way we have some more early in the past. So they’re all on the post, but why don’t we take up the slide two first and pause and then take up the other slides after that.

You ready, Diana?

Okay. Okay, there we go. Caitlin, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. All right. Keeping with the theme, we are low-key excited to give this PRS report this morning. We’ll start with slide two. 1336 on August 12th, we vetted unanimously to vote 1336, urgent status as amended by the August 6th ERCOT comments and forward to tag the August 11th revised IA. For 1339 in July, we vetted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted. And on August 12th, we vetted unanimously to endorse and forward to tag the July 15th PRS report in the May 29th IA. I will note that ERCOT filed comments after the PRS report on August 14th for 1339. 1341 on July 15th, PRS vetted unanimously to recommend approval of 1341 as submitted. On August 12th, we vetted unanimously to endorse and forward to tag the July 15th PRS report with the June 23rd IA. And then finally, 1344 on August 12th, we vetted unanimously to grant 1344 urgent status and recommend approval as submitted and submitting to tag with the July 28th IA. All no and tagged all unopposed.

Okay. So on NPR 1339, we do have 814 ERCOT comments that came in after PRS. Do we want to take a look at those comments?

Okay.

Eno, do you want to speak to these?

Can you hear me? Yep. Great, thank you. Yes, thanks. We filed comments to remove the real-time priority online reserves on the equation to calculate the financial tester losses. And the reason why it was not cached before is because that calculation is not in the system. It’s manually calculated, but the equations are shown in the protocols and it wasn’t available or we didn’t realize it at the time we submitted 1339. So it shouldn’t have any system impact because it’s not in the system, but that bill, the terminal is no longer being used.

Or in that it went away with a real-time co-optimization.

Okay, that’s pretty straightforward. Any questions or comments for Eno?

So for NPR 1339, we’d be looking to recommend approval as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report as amended by the 814 RCOTS comments. Is everybody okay? Was I going in the combo ballot for 1339?

Awesome, okay. So for the rest of slide two, we’re also looking to recommend approval of NPR 1336 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. NPR 1341 is recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report and NPR 1344 is recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. Are we also okay with these on the combo ballot?

Awesome, combo ballot slide two. We good on that, Corey?

Yes, ma’am. All right, Diana, I think you can do both slides three and slide four if you want. Okay, starting on 1214, so I’ll just say that this revision request was filed in December of 2023. There have been many comments filed, a lot of subcommittee review, and a revised IA that was filed on August 11th. This has gone through the whole gamut of review. And then on August 12th, PRS voted unanimously to endorse and forward the tax. The July 15th PRS report and the August 11th revised IA with the recommended priority and rank that we see there on the screen, 1329. On May 6th, we voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted. And then on August 12th, we voted unanimously to endorse and forward the tax. The June 10th PRS report as revised by PRS and the August 11th IA.

1331, on July 15th, we voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted. And then on August 12th, we voted unanimously to endorse and forward the tax. The July 15th PRS report in the August 7th IA. And then for 1335, this has also had several comments by RCOT and subcommittees. On August 12th, we voted unanimously to grant urgent status as amended by the July 1st RCOT comments and forward the tax, the May 26th IA and the recommended effective date at the day after this commission approval.

I see, do you want me to pause there? And I see Bob has a note for the IA on 12-14 or you want me to keep going? I would keep going. I think on the next slide, we have two with the IA over a million, so I think we’ll review both of those, but why don’t you just go ahead and keep going? Okay, so 1337 in August, we voted unanimously to grant 1337 urgent status as amended by the August 3rd RCOT comments and forward to tax with the May 26th IA. There was a lot of discussion and comments in the multiple stakeholder meetings. RCOT staff responded with improvements to their language as a result of that stakeholder feedback and RCOT staff did reiterate a strong desire to position the changes in 1337 to become effective by the end of 2026 and requested urgent status to maintain that timeline.

1338 on July 15th, we voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted. All, let’s see, PRS voted unanimously in August and forwarded to tax the July 15th PRS report with the May 29th IA. And then finally, we have 1342.

We voted unanimously to grant this urgent status and forwarded to tax the July, excuse me, the June 30th IA with the recommended priority and rank as seen there on the screen. Hand it over to you, Caitlin. Yep, we have two of these are pretty high IAs. So the first is as Bob Helton requested is NPR 1214. You can take a look at that.

Okay. Okay, so any questions or comments on this?

Yep, that’s Shane.

Yeah, thank you, Shane, Thomas, Michelle. This NPR has quite a long runway to get implemented.

And there are several very important things that have been rolled into it as this has like, has set there at PRS.

And I guess I wanna say that it would be like low-key cooked if we were to implement contracts for capacity and we weren’t able to add that impact into our DPA before this was thought. So if there’s any way that we can speed up that portion of it, or I just wanna make sure that we’re all aware of the importance of this going forward.

Yeah. Okay, do you want Troy or someone from RCAP to talk about the implementation time?

That would be good. And where they see this fitting with all the other stuff that’s the DRS that’s gonna be taking up all the project capacity next year. Okay. Thank you, Michelle. This is Troy Anderson, I can answer and then any other RCAP folks who would like to chime in. We’ve noted Shane’s comment from PRS about if there was a way we can piecemeal this at all. And we’re certainly gonna be looking at that.

Next year is gonna be a busy year with some major efforts going on, but we are gonna try to see if there are portions of this that can somehow, especially the, some of the higher impact portions, we’ll see if they can move forward. We’re not at a point to be able to make any commitments on that today, but certainly it’s gonna be on our mind as we look at activities for next year.

Okay, let’s go to Seth.

Yeah, I just wanna sort of tag on with what Shane was saying. It’s an important NPR. I think it’s one of those things where it becomes more important as time goes on. And maybe we have a contracts for capacity, just like with the Browning RMR, we had a solution sitting out for years that we never acted on. And then we get to the point where we actually have an RMR resource and then we’re behind on it. So I think we need to be proactive on these price formation solutions so that we don’t get ourselves into situations where we’re saying, oh man, I wish we would have implemented this now that we have one of these contracts for capacity.

Okay, thanks. Thanks, Seth. I see Keith in the chat. Go ahead, Keith.

Yeah, just to follow up on the comments from Shane and Seth. I think we definitely agree that 1214 has, there’s a lot in there that we like. There’s a lot in there lots of folks like. I think the challenge is we’ve got firming and we’ve got legislatively mandated requirements on things like firming and DRS. We’ll fit it in. It’s just, we’re trying to manage it with all these other things. So yeah, we’ll move as quickly as we can, but at the same time, lots of competing priorities, but we do see the benefits of this.

Okay.

Ned, would you like to weigh in? I was mostly trying to hit the theme of the month, but I agree with Shane and Seth. And Keith, appreciate you’ve got multiple things on your plate. I think this is, I mean, in terms of sending appropriate market signals, this one probably rises higher than some of the others, even if they have other juice on them.

So I agree with the sentiment that we should move this one on along. And if we can’t move it to the combo ballot, I’m willing to make the motion. I think we can move it to the combo ballot. It would be to recommend approval of NPR 1214 as recommended by PRF and the 812 PRS report. I think we can combo it. What I was going to ask if we wanted to check in on the IA, but I think the place to do that might be PRS.

Does that sound right, Shane? Maybe Diana should check in on the IA on this one.

For 1214. For the end of the year, and then again at the beginning of the next year. Yeah. We can put that on our list of tax report or tax items to follow up on. I don’t know if I would call it an action item, but I think it’s something, right, Shane and Seth, what I’m hearing is you guys just want to keep an eye on the IA as it progresses. And if there’s anything we can do to speed it up.

Yeah, if there’s ways we can work in the earlier, or some of the other concepts of this besides like the complete overhaul of the price, the way that the price centers are implemented, that would be great. It would be a shame if this, you know, had to wait for DRS to finish to start its 12 to 18 months. Okay. But I think the follow-up on that progression would be during choice report of PRS. I don’t think we need to create an action item attack. Yeah, yeah. We already get regular updates on the implementation timelines and all that. Okay. And we can count on you to speak up there. Yeah.

Okay, so.

All right. So we will put that on the combo. The other one that had a high IA was NPR 1338.

Do we want to take a look at that, Corey?

Okay.

This is another one between 750,000 and 1.25 million.

Does anybody have any questions or comments on this?

Okay. I’ve seen any. All right. So from the rest of Diana’s PRS report, we would be looking to recommend approval of 1329 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. Recommend approval of 1331 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. Recommend approval of 1335 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. Recommend approval of 1337 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. Recommend approval of 1338 that we just looked at as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. And recommend approval of 1342 as recommended by PRS in the 812 PRS report. And we put those remaining PRS items on the combo ballot.

Combo for all. All right.

Any other questions, comments on PRS?

Diana, do you have anything else for us? No ma’am, that’s it. Thank you. Okay. Bob Pelton, you do have a question or comment. Go ahead. Yeah. On the mitigated offer caps for the capacity contracts, what was the implementation timeline for that? Just to remind me. 1342? Yes. We can pull up the IA for that.

Registration is not six to nine months. Six to nine months. Just one follow-up if you don’t mind, Caitlin. Are we still expecting, this is for Eric. Are we still expecting to have a contract request out for a capacity, a contract for capacity by the end of the year? I know it’s been talked about off and on. I was trying to see how these two kind of fit together. Yep. I see two, Erika, in the queue. Let’s do Eno first. I think he’ll comment on the substance, yeah. Yes, Bob. We’re still on target to submit an RFP. We just have not had a chance to finalize the requirements, but that’s the objective. Okay. All right. So we will have a little bit of time in between the two then. Correct. And also, I just wanted to follow up on 1342. I believe that Troy has already addressed this issue at PRS, but the objective is to automate this process along with 826 because they both, 1342 and 826, address the mitigation for a local issue concern. So that’s why both 1342 and 826 should be implemented together. Okay. Thanks, Eno. Sure. Okay. Do Eno, yes, on expected contract for capacity. Nothing has changed there. We’re just, Erika, that’s finalizing sort of the terms. And then Troy, thank you. And then Troy, did you want to add anything else on the project’s implementation? Yeah, just that our working plan is to hopefully start the 826, 1342 combo later this year, because we believe we’ve got a window for the vendor portion to try to get that done before they’re really tied up with the other big projects in next year. So if we’re able to accomplish that, it could be some kind of a mid 27 implementation if we can work that out.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions on PRS?

All right. And Corey, we did put everything on the combo, correct? Yes, ma’am. We’ve got it. All right, Diana, anything else? That’s it for us. Thank you. Any other team playing your jargon? No, I’ve got to think about what they were saying. I tune it out.

Okay. Easy to tune them out. That’s great. All right. Now we are onto the RMS report with John Schaap. John, are you ready?

Yes, ma’am. I’m here. Can you hear me? We caught you before you traveled.

Yes. Yes, indeed. Great. Is my audio coming through okay? Yes. Okay, super. RMS has two items for TAC consideration. LPGR R077 and RMGR R186. Both are related to the low profile tree conversion going from an Excel document to Word document.

And I would request they be added to the combo ballot.

Okay.

So John’s right. We have two voting items looking to recommend approval of LPGR R077 as recommended by RMS and V811.

RMS report and recommend approval of RMGR R186 as recommended by RMS and V811 RMS report. I think the combo is great. Do you have more to your report, John? Just a few items to touch on on this slide. We’ve canceled our September 1st RMS meeting just due to a light agenda. We are conducting an email vote currently to approve the 2027 flight testing schedule. And then RMS has commenced discussions about well CP in the event that becomes a reality, we want to be prepared and have an understanding about scope, timing, and level of effort.

Trying to stay ahead of developments.

Okay. That’s all I have, Caitlin. Any questions or comments for John?

Okay. Okay. We can move to the RAS report. So for both RAS and WMS we were going to hold off on having the chair discuss the group’s discussion on ancillary service methodology until we get to the separate AS methodology item. So Shane, you can skip your comments on the AS methodology for 2027, but please present the rest of your report.

Well, thank you, Caitlin.

RAS has one voting item ready for act today as figure 144 on dynamic model submission and review requirements for large loads.

The vote did have two abstentions from the consumer segment. This is largely focused around ERCOT putting requirements directly on large loads, which has been our loads in general, which has been a common theme of discontent as we’ve gone through a lot of these large load NPRRs and other revision requests. For this one, ERCOT’s thought is that this sort of change would be something that was being requested by TIEC would make more sense to be had as part of the batch one plus consolidated transmission planning process. So they didn’t want to implement any of the suggested changes at this time. It did pass, I guess, unanimously minus the abstentions.

It had a cost of $200,000 to $250,000 and one FTE required to support the revision requests.

I just see some comments coming up in the chat. Yeah, do you want to do, typically we go through the whole report and then go back to the voting items, but I’m fine either way. I’m trying to take the voting items now.

Or as they come up. So on figure 144, I know we had comments pending or talked about. So let’s go ahead and have that discussion, I guess. Start with Lauren. Sorry, only voting items. Yeah, we’re back to school, so we can do things however we want the school year.

Is it Beth first, Beth first and then Lauren. Go ahead, Beth. I was going to, if you can hear me, I was going to defer to Lauren, let her go first and I’m happy to follow up. Okay.

Lauren, are you ready? Yes, good morning. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. All right. So it’s Lauren Lewis with TIEC. We had filed comments prior to the last ROS meeting and Shane kind of touched on those already, but I just want to quickly highlight our position and why we proposed some minor language changes there. We understand ERCOT’s need for accurate modeling and its planning, but it’s still not clear to us, especially after the discussion at ROS, why traditional industrial loads need to be subject to this requirement at this time. We’re not generally opposed to providing ERCOT with additional information for situational awareness and modeling during the interconnection process. But one of our concerns continues to be the risk of ERCOT imposing new requirements directly on industrial and manufacturing customers, particularly when there hasn’t really been a demonstrated reliability need. And part of our concern with this and why we’re bringing it up now here is ERCOT’s language and its reasoning and justification that it intends to propose ride-through requirements similar to those in NOGR 282 for non-computational large loads. And so it probably doesn’t need to be said again, but I will say it, that TIEC will continue to oppose any efforts that would allow ERCOT to dictate how manufacturing facilities are designed and operated. And to provide a little bit of extra context here for our concerns, traditional industrial loads are fundamentally different from the computational loads, both in how they operate and the reasoning that led to those voltage ride-through requirements for computational loads. And ERCOT really hasn’t shown that non-computational industrial customers pose that same kind of ride-through or reliability risk that would justify expanding these requirements more broadly. So our initial request here has been to keep the dynamic modeling requirements limited to computational loads for now. And then if there is an identified reliability risk for non-computational loads, we could address adding that at a future time, even revisiting it during the batch one plus process. We’re just not convinced that longstanding industrial customers it’s been modeled under existing processes for years should be brought into this broader framework that’s been developed in response to a different issue. And so with that being said, in the interest of compromise, the red line language that we proposed is really just to clarify the role of TDSPs in submitting or helping large loads submit the required information. We really just want it spelled out here that the utility should remain the retail customer’s primary point of contact throughout the interconnection process. Many large industrial customers don’t have dedicated power compliance teams. And so it’s difficult for them to be expected to independently navigate the evolving requirements within ERCOT when they’re not market participants.

And through the batch process during this, these manufacturers have to hire outside consultants costing tens of thousands of dollars to compile this information. And so with additional revisions throughout the process, there’s increased costs. So we just thought to streamline the process and reduce revisions that loads could work directly with their TDSPs. And we also think that this approach would improve efficiency. So in its good cause exception filing and 59142, ERCOT had pointed to internal processing constraints and inconsistencies with how the ILEs were submitting their modeling information as a cause for the delay in reviewing the dynamic data submissions by that batch zero deadline. And the impact analysis for this paper only calls for one additional full-time employee. So we think that routing this through the TDSPs who already have an established relationship with their customers, it would just create a more consistent and efficient process for everyone involved. So ideally, just to sum all of that up, we’d like to remove the non-computational loads from the revision request at this time and keep the option to have more discussions about this later as we go through the batch one plus process. But in the alternative, at least adding some language, just clarifying the submission process that it’ll be through the TDSPs or at least with support and directed by the TDSPs. So with that, happy to take any questions.

Okay.

The language you’d like is the language here. Yes. Okay, I heard you say two things, but I think this has both of them, the removal of this for non-computational loads and the- Yeah, this is our compromise language. Okay. Okay, let’s go to Beth.

I wanted Lauren to go first because I knew she would have more to say and she eloquently laid out the position of the large industrial consumers. I’m not in the middle of that argument and that it kind of comes down to a large consumer, TSP, ERCOT issue to sort out. My question, and that was the debate that we had at ROS two months ago when we sort of, we approved some language with lots of abstentions as part of that vote. And I don’t think that was clearly reflected in Shane’s slide on this issue. When the issue came back to ROS for the IA review, TIEC brought forward this language, which was considered and rejected by ROS by not being included in our recommendation to TAC. So lots of things on this issue. My specific question is really to ERCOT and has to do with just given some, the disruption of the batch zero process, I’d just like to hear some explanation of how do these requirements fit into what we think our current timeline is right now. And just hear an ERCOT response to everything that they’ve heard so far.

Okay, I see Fred.

Hi, this is Fred, can you hear me? We can hear you.

I think to kind of respond to Faith’s questions, PICO 144 is independent of the batch zero. The purpose really the need for 144 is to compliment the approval of NOGA 282. So PICO 144 set up the dynamic model requirement for most all kinds of TSPs. And it really helps to assess the large load of run-through capability and the model performance such a lot that it will help improve the efficiency to support the larger load of going through the quarterly stability assessment and it does actually request support and the ongoing operations. Thank you.

Thank you, Fred. I appreciate hearing that perspective.

Okay.

Did that answer your question, Beth?

Yes, it did. I guess, and then, you know, just to foster more discussion, which is harder to do when we’re virtual here, you know, I’d love to hear the TSP support or outrage over what TIEC is proposing as well. Okay. I will let them gather their thoughts on support or outrage. And we also have Brian Sands in the queue. So let’s go to Brian.

Echo Beth’s comments about just this WebEx only being insufficient compared to being in person.

My Gen Alpha kids have a word called doppler-choppelganger where it’s the ugly twin. And so this meeting is the ugly twin of a actual normal TAC meeting. But that’s not why I jumped in the queue. I jumped in the queue because I, as a large load developer, want to have access to ERCOT just modeling.

And if everything has to go through the TSP, I’m curious if TIEC has a perspective on having access to where large load projects are as they’re going through the interconnection process. And if this language limits access by requiring everything to go to the TSP. Thank you.

This is Laura with TIEC. I can respond to that quickly. One of the things that we had talked about, and I know this was discussed during the batch process with some kind of portal, because I do think the transparency through the process is something that we’re also concerned about. So it’s not keeping the information from ERCOT. It’s just having the TDSPs be a part of providing information to the loads in a way that’s easy to understand. And then a transparent portal for all three parties involved. So I think we’re aligned there. Okay, great. So just so I can repeat this back to you, you all support a transparent portal so that large loads can see the status of their project as it progresses through the interconnection process.

And you don’t think that this language prohibits access. Right. I think we were intentional with the language to leave the door open for that type of process for that transparency. So yes, to answer your question. Thank you.

Okay. Are you covered? You’re good, Brian.

Oh, good. Thank you. And we did, you know, we wanted to be in person. I’m in often. So we just had that unexpected HVAC issue, I believe, at the med center. So we’re not sure. Oh, yeah. A lot of criticism of you. Definitely. I get it. Well, I mean, I’m sure there’s good people really working hard to get the HVAC checks. I hope so. I hope so too. All right. Let’s keep going down the queue. I did like that slang though. The ugly twin slang. Let’s go to Basit.

Basit from Zero Emission Grids.

Okay. Martha, why don’t you go ahead and we’ll see if he has an audio issue or something. Thanks, Caitlin. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thanks. Yeah, this is Martha Henson from Encore. Beth had asked earlier for a TSP opinion on this. And of course I’m speaking only for Encore here. But when we first saw it, we didn’t have major concerns with TIC’s comments on their surface. You know, we’ve historically been doing a lot of doing this function, you know, for years in terms of passing through load models and other customer information from the customer to ERCOT. However, I would say that that construct is becoming more and more challenging, especially as we saw, you know, sort of the onboarding process into batch zero. There’s a lot of different pieces of information coming into play that had to be provided in very specific timeframes, tight timeframes. And so, you know, I agree with the comment earlier that a common portal like Rio for loads is really the best solution long-term so that, you know, all three parties can see the same things and that, you know, multiple parties can be inputting information. I think also we didn’t actually know ERCOT’s opinion on this when the comments were filed. I think it would be helpful to hear their opinion because I think what I heard at Ross is that they have some concerns with this. And I think at this point, we would be somewhat deferential to that, especially given how the models were provided in batch zero. Thanks.

Okay, so is that a question for ERCOT?

I think it’d be helpful to hear from them. I’m sure they’ll weigh in at some point here. Thanks. Okay, Fred, do you want to go ahead now or do you want to go with the queue? Hi.

Hello. Hello. We dropped, we heard at the beginning, but your audio dropped. How about now? Now it’s good. Okay, thank you. So as Martha mentioned, we discussed at hours and the TIEC proposed redline changes.

And I think that we have several concerns for the language here. One is the location of the language. So it probably require a broader review of the whole planning guide to try to make sure there’s a consistency or kind of potential language added in other sections as well. But I would say overall, additionally, I think we provided and discussed at hours is it will be more efficient to update the data directly from the entities and that can really minimize the intermediary communication and the data exchange through kind of multiple entities for the same model. But we recognize the feedback and we think we recommend addressing this one in the ongoing page and discussions and have a kind of a better holistic discussion about ultimately in terms of how we receive the models, how all the entities are mentioned in an efficient and effective way. So we do come in to maintain our language and address this one in the page and discussions.

Okay. Thanks, Fred.

Let’s go to Blake. And then I see that Rusty posted his questions, but let’s go to Blake first.

Blake Holt, LCRA. Agree with a lot of the comments that Martha raised. The current email process is not sustainable. We’ve heard of portals coming. We’ve heard the portal may even be accelerated with the audit process. So very supportive of that. And I was actually gonna question Fred as well. The language reads okay to me right here, but I just wanted to verify that it wasn’t going to handcuff ERCOT with that new process being stood up. I do agree with Fred that this may be better handled more holistically in the batch one and CTP discussions. So from the LCRA perspective, my preference would be to move forward with the language as approved by Ross and let’s commit to addressing this more holistically in further discussions. Thanks.

Thanks, Blake. Let me, I’ll go back to the question from the Bureau of Mission Grid. For November 2SA, is MQT report submission a mandatory requirement for a LCL? Is that, Fred, is that a question for you? This is Fred, yeah. I can try to, I would say as of now, there is no MQT requirement for LCL. And this is what P144 tried to establish. So once 144 become effective, I think the process will really help the entity perform the MQT and that really will improve the efficiency for the project getting to the QSA. So as of now, until 144 is in place, there is no MQT requirement.

Okay. Okay. That’s clear. Let’s go to Bob Whitmire. Do you want me to?

Yeah, I’d just point out 90% of new large loads coming are data centers. While I’m sympathetic to TIEC, 90% of the problem needs that direct communication. So I’ll just leave it at that. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Bob. All right. Cue is clear.

Do we need to have more discussion?

We would be looking to, or one possible motion would be, recommend approval of figure 144 as recommended by Ross in the 86 Ross report.

People can make other motions if they’d like. Is there a motion we’d like on the table? Do we need more discussion?

Go ahead, Beth. Yeah. And I appreciate us taking the time to work through this. As you can, you might imagine, like I said, we spent a lot of time on this issue at ROS as well. In the aftermath of this discussion, I’m aware of TIEC’s concerns. I understand those concerns, but I am more compelled by the comments, but the last comment by Whitmire, let’s solve the 90% problem.

And I support Blake’s position that said, where he said, let’s improve, let’s go ahead and endorse it as recommended and then put the pressure on to get some sort of portal done. I think that that’s probably our best choice today. Now, if that needs to be a separate motion, I’m happy, I think I’m happy to make that. I’d prefer not to, but I could make that or we could just put this on the combo ballot for approval. So those, I haven’t quite made a motion, but I’ve indicated what I’m thinking.

Okay. And you have some time. We have Bill Blevins in the queue.

You there, Bill? Can you hear me? Yeah, we’re excited to hear from you.

All right, well, so I guess I had a question on this language.

What I believe is that you will need some sort of a tool to help out with the communications. I think this will help everybody, but if a industrial TEIC customer was doing a large project and wanted to use the portal, would they be able to with this language? Does this give the optionality?

The optionality to use the port, to have a portal? Right. If they’re saying that they want to, they prefer to use the TSPs at this point in time, I guess that’s what the language says, but maybe not everybody wants to do that. If they’re an industrial customer, would they be able to use the same process that the data centers and large loads are wanting to use? Oh.

Okay.

So this is a question for TEIC. She answered a variation of this question, but let’s go back to Lauren.

Yes, we think this leaves the optionality because it’s either through the TSP or a process sent to the large load by the TSP. And that process could be this portal that we’re talking about. So yes. But I think, right. I think we’re now asking about the optionality. If we have a portal to also let’s do it through the TSP, but I think that’s still sort of the same question.

Okay. Okay. Let’s go to Ned.

Hey there, Ned.

Okay. Okay. Aaron, do you want to go ahead while we wait for Ned?

People hear me? Yes, ma’am. Okay. Okay. Ned’s mic seems to have stopped working. Aaron, are you, has your mic stopped working as well?

Can you hear me now, Caitlin?

Yes. Okay. Also, I guess I’ll come on camera. Just talking to myself. No, you were doing great. Everyone could hear you.

It’s fine. So I think from A&P’s perspective, we’ll echo what we were hearing.

It sounds like ERCOT doesn’t love the language. I think we need to make some progress on this, understanding some of what was shared by ERCOT at the PUC last week with the portal potentially coming for batch zero verification. And then also I think they’re pretty grounded in stating it’s coming for the future comprehensive transmission planning process anyway. I would also say, I think there’s some more details just around dynamic QSA handoff process that need to have further discussion. And so taking that holistically will be important because I think there’s a few more details that aren’t encompassed directly with PGR 144 that do go along with the whole topic.