►
From YouTube: Business Meeting for Tuesday, November 23, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
morning
this
is
chair
french
and
I'm
convening
the
regularly
scheduled
business
meeting
of
the
kansas
corporation
commission
for
this
tuesday
november
23rd
joined
by
my
colleagues,
commissioner
duffy
and
commissioner
keane
on
today's
agenda.
We
have
a
big
agenda
of
32
consent,
agenda
items,
six
noticed
items,
and
then
we
will
have
a
presentation
on
activities
at
spp
this
quarter
from
sherry
albrecht,
so
we
will
roll
into
our
agenda
first
with
the
consent
agenda,
commissioners
you've
had
the
opportunity
to
review
all
the
proposed
items
on
the
consent
agenda.
A
A
B
A
A
C
Good
morning,
commissioners,
thank
you.
On
august,
19th
staff
of
2020
staff
filed
a
petition
to
request
the
investigation
into
evergy's
standalone
plan
which
we'll
commonly
refer
to
as
the
stp
on
august
27
2020.
The
commission
issued
an
order
opening
a
general
investigation
to
provide
staff
stakeholders,
energy,
an
opportunity
to
collaborate
and
evaluate
the
stp.
C
C
The
commission
is
also
concerned
with
the
new
energy
projections
of
future
spending
increases,
evergy's,
2021
investor
day
presentation
added
an
additional
year
to
its
five-year
spending
projections
and
significantly
increased
the
capex
spending
in
2025.,
given
evergy's
apparent
plans
for
large
future
investments,
additional
transparency
is
warranted.
Accordingly.
This
order
directs
energy
to
file
with
its
next
capital
plan,
reporting
filing
an
explanation
of
the
projected
increased
spending
levels
and
the
impact
of
those
spending
levels
on
the
trajectory
of
retail
rates
related
to
concerns
over
the
stp
costs.
C
A
D
Chairman
a
few
comments,
if
I
might
kind
of
bootstrapping
my
comments
on
to
those
on
mr
fiddleton,
I
think
brian,
you
provided
a
really
good
overview
of
the
history
of
how
we
got
to
to
this
point
and
what's
occurred
to
me.
This
order
obviously
represents
the
culmination
of
four
workshops
presented
by
evergy
and
subjected
they
subjected
themselves
to
cross-examination
by
interveners
and
by
the
commission.
D
D
D
An
analysis
of
future
anticipated
capital
expenditures
and
the
potential
impact
that
those
actions
and
expenditures
may
have
on
ratepayers.
I'll,
simply
summarize
my
my
observations
by
I
want
to
thank
evergy
for
information.
It's
provided
in
conjunction
with
this
particular
docket.
I
think
the
informational
content
was
quite
high.
I
want
to
thank
the
interveners
as
well
for
all
of
the
different
perspectives
that
they've
added
to
to
this
docket.
I
think
it
was
an
important
process
and
I'm
glad
it
was
undertaken.
B
I
do
subscribe
to
what
my
fellow
commissioner
has
said.
However,
he
says
he
appreciates
the
information
that
we
received.
We
had
no
choice
but
to
open
a
docket
into
the
investigation
of
this
matter
when
the
activist
company
elliot
came
to
this
state
and
to
evergy
in
particular
to
insert
themselves
in
the
affairs
of
the
utility.
B
Let's
be
very
clear:
our
role
here
is
not
to
benefit
the
shareholder.
Our
role
here
is
to
protect
the
ratepayer
from
unnecessary
costs
and
burdensome
rate
increases,
and
there
were
significant
amounts
of
proposals
for
new
building.
That
would
enhance
the
coffers
of
the
rate
of
the
shareholder,
not
the
ratepayer.
B
Should
never
prioritize
shareholder
investments
above
their
ratepayer
interests
bottom
line?
I
firmly
believe
that,
so
we
will
continue
to
monitor
the
activities
of
the
activist
company
upon
this
utility.
We
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
data
and
hold
accountable
through
performance
measures,
whether
this
company
ever
g
can
meet.
B
It
says
it's
quite
it's
proposing
further.
I
would
like
to
say
one
more
thing
hearing
they
did
talk
about
inflation
and
they
were.
The
company
was
proud
that
their
proposal
was
at
or
below
the
inflation
rate.
You
compound
that
over
a
four
year
time
period,
though-
and
it's
rather
significant-
this
is
a
year
ago,
year
and
a
half
ago,
let's
roll
the
months,
if
you
look
at
today,
I
surely
hope
that
interest
rates
are
not
the
barometer
for
which
this
company
will
evaluate
its
proposals.
B
A
Second,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
described
order
in
this
docket.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that
motion?
I
guess
I
will
add
my
comment.
I
do
think
the
order
strikes
the
right
tone
and
I
subscribe
to
all
of
it,
but
I
do
want
to
emphasize
a
couple
things
and
there
will
be
some
common
threads
with
what
my
fellow
commissioners
have
already
said.
A
It
is,
they
are
entitled
to
earn
a
reasonable
return
on
their
investments,
but
in
return
for
those
certificates,
all
their
actions
must
be
aligned
with
customer
needs.
Actions
to
increase
shareholder
value
are
not
inherently
bad
that
many
times
they
may
be
necessary
or
even
to
the
benefit
of
customers.
A
Investments
that
are
made
primarily
or
solely
to
satisfy
shareholder
desires
will
increase
the
company's
risk
of
disallowances
and
lower
returns
in
the
future,
and
I
do
hope
that
elliott
and
other
would-be
activist
investor
groups
understand
this
and
trust
that
local
management
is
best
positioned
to
understand.
Kansas
customer
needs.
Thank
you
with
that.
If
there
is
no
further
discussion
on
the
motion,
those
in
favor,
please
vote
aye,
aye
aye.
The
order
is
approved.
C
C
C
C
Of
skipping,
some
of
the
the
details
are
in
the
order.
The
commission
agrees
that
symmetry
will
not
be
harmed
by
a
three-day
extension
of
the
deadline
to
file
a
settlement.
The
commission
also
agrees
that
a
short
extension
could
benefit
customers
by
allowing
kgs
to
issue
securitized
bonds
at
the
current
low
interest
rates.
C
A
A
A
C
Yes,
thank
you.
On
november
15th
leticia,
michelle
filed
a
formal
complaint
against
evergy.
Her
complaint
identifies
an
abode
rather
than
an
address,
and
the
enlisted
abode
does
not
include
a
city
or
zip
code.
Therefore,
the
commission
has
no
way
of
knowing
whether
she
resides
within
energy
service
territory
and
if
she
does,
whether
she
resides
in
energy,
kansas,
metro
or
in
every
kansas
central
territory.
C
There's
a
vast
array
of
claims
made
in
the
complaint,
but
one
of
them
is
that
her
alleged
obligations
are
already
prepaid
by
government
appropriations
and
therefore
she's
entitled
a
refund
for
all
statements.
Since
the
initiation
of
her
service,
she
calculates
the
refund
that
she's
owed
to
as
425
000.
C
So
upon
review,
this
formal
complaint
does
not
comply
with
the
requirements
of
k.a.r
821-220b
and
therefore
fails
to
establish
a
prima
facie
case
for
commission
action.
The
the
miss
mishow
is
given
30
days
from
the
date
of
this
order
to
correct
any
procedural
deficiencies
that
are
noted
in
the
order.
With
that,
I'm
available
for
questions.
A
A
E
C
Yes,
thank
you,
and,
and
this
order
this
stock,
it
is
also
a
complaint
filed
by
miss
misha.
Who
was,
I
just
discussed.
This
one
is
against
kansas
gas
rather
than
ever
g
and
this
one
she
seeks
325
thousand
dollars
rather
than
four
hundred
twenty
five
thousand
dollars,
but
otherwise
the
factual
background
is
the
same
as
the
order
I
just
presented,
and
the
conclusions
are
the
same
that
she
does
not
state
a
prima
facie
case
and
that
she'd
be
given
30
days
to
have
the
opportunity
to
correct
any
deficiencies.
A
A
B
A
Hi
aye
the
order
is
approved.
Thank
you
brian.
We
now
move
to
our
fifth
noticed
item.
This
is
in
docket
number
22
cons,
3202
cpen,
and
this
is
a
proposed
shut-in
order
for
pollock
energy
llc,
and
our
presenter
for
this
item
is
mr
tristan
kimbrell.
Thank
you
before
you
as
a
penalty
order
for
pollock
energy
llc,
which.
C
While
operator's
license
was
suspended,
public
records
indicate
that
it
unlawfully
produced
more
than
34
000
mcf
of
natural
gas
and
2
300
barrels
of
oil.
This
order
assesses
a
50,
000
penalty
and
directs
commission
staff
to
seal
all
oil
and
gas
operations
of
the
operator.
With
that,
I
would
recommend
approval
of
the
order
and
I
am
available
for
any
questions.
A
D
D
D
The
initial
violation
was
the
failure
to
fill
in
a
drilling
pit
a
hundred
dollar
fine,
and
I
requested
that
it
be
filled
in
because
of
the
location
of
these
wells
in
barber
county.
These
drilling
pits
are
not
small,
they
are
larger
than
olympic
sized
swimming
pools,
and
this
one
is
a
pretty
substantially
pretty
substantial
pit
with
no
doubt
but
to
it.
It's
just
mind-boggling
to
me
to
have
an
operator
who,
in
the
face
of
a
of
a
notice,
a
violation
in
the
face
of
a
penalty
order
to
with
the
production
they
have
to
mediate.
D
D
Let
me
ask
you
this
question:
if
I
might
trust-
and
you
alluded
to
some
of
the
production
information
that
would
be
production
that
occurred
during
the
time
of
the
revoked
license,
can
you
give
me
some
idea
of
what
what
would
have
been
the
likely
gross
income
stream
from
oil
and
gas
during
that
period
of
operations
under
a
revoked
license?
Do
you
have
that
information.
D
And
in
calculating
the
oil
portion
of
that,
what
price
did
you
use
for
purposes
of
guesstimating?
I
used
40
per
hour.
That's
pretty
modest,
40
bucks.
It's
pretty
much!
That's
going
to
go
back
in
point
of
time,
it's
a
little
big,
but
I
think
it
might
well
encompass
virtually
all
the
time
frame.
That's
encompassed
by
by
the
the
the
the
operations
under
a
provoked
license,
but
so
in
essence,
if
I
can
cut
to
the
chase
here,
we
are
by
way
of
this
penalty.
We
are
assessing
a
penalty
that
is
somewhere
between.
D
D
D
Of
my
questions,
I
appreciate
your
response,
tristan.
I
intend
to
obviously
vote
to
approve
this
order.
I
think
it's
it's
just
mind-boggling
to
me.
That
has
something
so
ostensibly
simple
to
fix
has
come
to
the
point
of
having
us
actually
physically
shut
in
these
operations
because
of,
I
think,
frankly,
a
very
cavalier
attitude
on
the
part
of
the
operator
toward
kansas
rules
and
regs.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
B
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
approve
the
described
order
in
this
docket.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
on
that
motion?
Hearing
none,
those
in
favor,
please
vote
on
all
right,
aye
the
order
is
approved.
We
now
move
to
our
last
noticed
docket
item.
It's
in
docket
number
22
cons,
3214
cpen,
and
this
is
a
proposed
penalty
order
in
that
docket
form.
John
horton.
Our
presenter
for
this
item
is
again
mr
tristan
kimball.
A
B
B
A
A
Because
I
mean
ultimately,
I've
said
this
before,
but
ultimately
my
my
interest
is,
you
know
the
fine
is
what
it
is,
but
ultimately
we
want
to
see
wells
get
plugged
and,
however
that
happens,
you
know
that's
what
I
want
to
encourage.
So
with
that
I
appreciate
the
answer
to
the
question.
I
believe
we
do
have
a
motion
and
then
I
have
seconded
it
and
mr
keenan
is
recusing,
so
I
will
call
the
motion
at
this
time
and
those
in
favor
please
vote
aye
aye
aye.
The
order
is
approved.
Thank
you
tristan.
A
E
E
C
A
E
A
E
All
right
so
sorry
about
that
all
right,
I'm
here
to
update
you
on
the
quarterly
spp
meetings
which
which
you
know
were
nearly
a
month
ago,
but
the
rsc
had
its
regular
meeting
a
quarterly
meeting
on
october
25th,
which
was
preceded
by
an
educational
session
in
the
morning
and
business
meeting
in
the
afternoon.
The
business
meeting
was
very
abbreviated.
E
There
was
also
a
joint
stakeholder
meeting
in
the
afternoon
and
that
joint
stakeholder
meeting
is
one
where
the
rsc
meets
in
conjunction
with
the
spp
board
of
directors
and
members
committee
and
those
presentations
from
spp
staff
that
are
pertinent
to
both
groups
are
addressed
or
presented
during
that
joint
stakeholder
meeting
in
in
the
for
purposes
of
time
and
efficiency,
and
then
the
spp
board
of
directors
committees
meeting
met
on
october
26th,
so
wait.
I
went
too
far.
E
E
E
E
Liaison
committee
update
the
improved
risk
resource
availability
task
force
in
the
cost
allocation,
work
group
and
I'll
get
into
details
about
those,
but
it
was
a
very
brief
meeting
that
that
afternoon,
the
seams
liaison
committee
at
the
point
in
time
I
of
the
business
meeting
hadn't
met
since
july,
so
the
report
I
gave
you
in
august
was
the
most
current
report.
They
did,
however,
meet
on
november
18th,
so
I'm
providing
that
update
for
you
at
this
time.
E
When
I
last
spoke
with
you
there,
they
were
the
process
of
developing
a
survey
for
rape,
pancaking,
which
was
completed
it
has
been
completed.
There
were
nine
responses
from
spp
stakeholders
and
11
responses
from
miso
stakeholders,
spp
and
mice
were
expected
to
file
responses.
Sometime
this
week
we
have
not
had
the
seems
liaison
committee
will
cover
those,
probably
at
a
meeting
in
february
they're
waiting
for
the
rape
pancaking
group
to
meet
to
go
over
those
survey
responses,
and
that
has
not
yet
happened.
I
think
they're
anticipating
a
meeting,
perhaps
sometime
in
december.
E
E
The
purpose
of
those
market
efficiency
projects
is
to
bridge
the
gap
between
real
time
and
day
ahead,
market
congestion
and
then
the
5
to
20
year
planning
horizon
congestion
issues.
Miso
and
pjm
have
had
have
targeted
market
efficiency
project
process
in
place
and
has
been
in
place
for
several
years
now.
So
spp
and
miso
are
looking
at
that
framework
that
existing
framework
to
see
if
it
could
be
used
as
a
starting
point
for
developing
something
appropriate
for
the
miso
spp
scene.
E
E
The
other
topic
of
discussion
was
the
joint
myso
spp
targeted
interconnection.
Q
study,
spp
and
miso
have
developed
a
number
of
have
identified
a
number
of
projects
that
for
interconnection,
of
low-cost
resources
that
would
benefit
both
region
and
so
they're
trying
to
develop
some
transmission
solutions
to
resolve
the
constraints
that
exist
in
spp
and
lyso
as
determined
by
reliability
models.
But
the
process
will
include
evaluation
of
solutions
using
economic
models
as
well,
so
they
have
identified
52
constraints
across
the
scene
for
possible
mitigation.
E
E
They're
looking
at
that
load
benefits
are
typically
determined.
That's
an
existing
metric,
it's
adjusted
production
costs.
Gi
customer
benefits
is
something
that's
that's
a
new
consideration.
I
think
that's
the
part
of
the
equation
that
they're
grappling
with
at
primarily
at
the
moment
and
then
monetizing
other
other
benefits.
How
how
do
you
calculate
and
and
award
what
consideration?
E
E
I
know
that
as
far
as
information
that
had
been
provided
through
our
the
cog
representative,
they
were
thinking,
maybe
maybe
march
they
would
have
something
closer
to
a
solution,
but
I
think
that's
a
very,
very
optimistic
expectation
and
I'm
guessing
it'll
be
somewhere
over
the
course
of
the
summer,
if
not
into
the
fall,
but
so
that
covers
the
seems
liaison
committee
I'll
stop
here
a
minute.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
about
any
of
that
process?
At
this
point.
E
Yes,
I
I
do
sense
that
there
is
a
lot
of
if
it
does
feel
a
lot
more
optimistic
than
it
has
in
the
past.
In
terms
of
there's,
there's
still
a
ways
to
go.
I
think
there
are
some
things
that
will
have
to
be
changed.
You
know
they
do
have
a
joint
operating
agreement
that
that
exists,
and
I
don't
know
whether
this
will
have
an
impact
on
that
at
some
point.
But
but
the
study
process
has
gone
well,
even
though
there
are
slightly
different
benefit.
E
E
B
Yeah
my
comment
is,
I
think,
in
the
10
years
I
was
gone.
I
believe
the
spp
has
grown
so
much
that
it
has
formed
its
own
kind
of
bureaucracy
and
it's
not
nimble
like
it
used
to
be-
and
I
think
sometimes
perhaps
were
we
we
get
railroaded
by
our
own
or
our
inactivity
is
partly
a
result
of
how
big
spp
has
grown
and
it
it
has
difficulty
filtering
through
all
the
layers,
but
I
am
encouraged
to
hear
that
you
feel
like
some
progress
can
be
made.
E
A
Yeah
and
sherry
I'll,
just
chime
in
I
mean
I'm
also
very
encouraged
by
everything
I've
heard
on
jtiq
so
far,
and
I
I
you
know,
I
hadn't
thought
about
it
too
much,
but
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
duffy's
comment
there
that
I
think
there's
in
my
opinion,
not
nearly
enough
federal
funds
are
being
allocated
to
transmission
compared
to
what
they're,
putting
into
other
items
that
I
might
put
lower
down
my
list.
But
these
kinds
of
projects
that
increase
connectivity
between
the
regions
and
allow
interconnection
of
lower
cost
generation.
A
They
seem
to
be
exactly
what
those
funds
may
be
targeted
at.
So
I
think
there'd
be
a
big
benefit
to
having
these
projects
ready
to
perhaps
receive
some
federal
funding,
which
also
then,
would
ease
a
lot
of
the
cost
allocation
discussions
of
of
who
pays
for
the
projects
and
correct
me.
If
I'm
I'm
wrong
on
anything,
I
say
here,
but
I
understand
they
are
looking
at
a
pretty
big
portfolio
of
projects.
A
They
are
trying
to
break
out
what
are
the
benefits
to
customers
or
load
within
the
regions,
and
then
that
might
be
an
amount
that
those
customers
chip
in
or
the
region
chips
in,
but
then
the
remaining
amount.
You
know
to
the
extent
it's
not
a
cost
benefit
of
one
to
the
region.
The
remaining
amount
is
going
to
have
to
be
funded
purely
by
the
generators
that
are
seeking
to
interconnect.
Is
that
correct.
A
A
It's
a
less
as
we've
talked
about
less
siloed
approach
where
you
are
able
to
look
at,
you
know,
benefits
to
multiple
different
parties
and
even
if
it's
cost
not
cost
beneficial
for
one
party,
if
you
know,
if
different
people
can
all
chip
in
the
amount
that
they
benefit
from
it,
you
might
end
up
being
able
to
build
a
project
and
nobody
has
to
foot
the
entire
bill.
So
I
think
it's
a
a
really
innovative
approach
and
and
the
area
or
the
way
things
should
be
moving.
B
And-
and
if
I
could
just
add
here
on
this
point
and
any
other
well,
I
believe
we
are
aptly
represented
and
by
the
way,
congratulations
chair
french
on
your
nomination
and
vote
in
as
the
vp.
If
there's
anything
that
we
can
do
as
fellow
commissioners
to
affect
our
support
or
visit
with
even
our
counterparts
in
other
states
to
say
come
on
clickity-clack,
let's
move
this
along
folks
because
I
do
believe
being
shovel
ready
and
knowing
that
there's
there's
opportunity
there
through
the
infrastructure
bill.
B
E
You
know
if
there
are
those
funds
available
to
whatever
extent
you
know
that
that
might
that
might
aid
the
cost
allocation
process,
because
not
only
will
that
cost
allocation
have
to
be.
I
mean
spp
and
miso
are
working
together
on
that
methodology,
as
well
as
stakeholders
from
each
of
those
regions,
but
they
will
have
the
cost.
Allocation
methodology
will
have
to
come
back
through
cog
and
rsc
for
approval
too,
which
is
part
of
that
bureaucracy
that
you're
you're
talking
about,
and
that
can
be
a
lengthy
process.
Unfortunately,.
E
I've
left
the
hit
c1
slide
in
here.
It
is
one
of
the
hit
the
hit
objectives,
recommendations
it
it.
It
remains
in
suspension.
Spp
has
a
lot
on
its
plate.
Their
staff
is,
is
stretched
pretty
thin.
There
is
a
new
deliverability
steering
committee
that
has
been
considering
a
task
force
report.
Now
I
think,
going
on
probably
about
a
year,
maybe
a
little
over
a
year's
time.
E
E
Hit
c2
is
the
cost
allocation
waiver.
This
would
benefit
sunflower
and
midwest
energy
in
in
western
kansas,
as
I
discussed
last
time
that
the
filing
was
made
at
ferc
ferc
rejected
it.
The
the
spp
filing
that
would
establish
this
waiver
process
said
we
needed
more
criteria,
more
specifically
defined
criteria,
and
so
cog
has
developed
three
criteria
to
define
eligibility.
E
One
of
them
has
to
do
with
capacity,
one
has
to
do
with
flow,
and
one
has
to
do
with
with
benefits
and
unfortunately,
now
with
my
full
screen,
I'm
not
seeing
the
notes
I
have
I
have
in
the
presentation
I
sent
you,
you
should
be
able
to
see
in
the
notes
portion
the
the
specific
criteria
listed
listed
there,
but
what
happened?
Was
this
call?
We've
been
discussing
this
at
cog
for
the
last
three
months.
We
did
take
a
straw
poll
at
our
last
meeting
in
early
november
in
the
straw
poll.
E
So,
with
with
that
straw
poll
spp,
is,
is
developing
or
has
developed
a
revision
request,
that's
been
given
a
number
rr-483
which
would
place
this
waiver
criteria
and
the
procedure
for
for
granting
or
considering
a
waiver
in
spp's
tariff.
The
expectation
is,
is
that
cog
will
will
meet
in
december.
We'll
have
a
vote
on
this
in
december
so
that
we
can
present
this
to
rsc
and
for
a
vote
in
january
and
get
that
new
language
filed
at
ferc
thereafter.
E
About
40
projects
would
be
eligible
for
the
waiver,
and
those
40
projects
would
be
probably
the
remaining
what
they
would.
What
would
be
waived
was
the
remaining
transmission
revenue
requirement
for
for
those
projects,
and
that
amounts
to
14
million
dollars
when
you
consider
the
capacity
criteria
alone,
if
you
consider,
on
top
of
that
the
flow
criteria
that
would
drop
that
remaining
revenue
requirement
to
12
million
dollars.
E
It
would
go
before
rsc
and
go
through
before
the
board
of
directors,
and
everybody
gets
noticed
notified
of
these
requests
early
on
in
the
process
so
and
there
are,
we've
developed
some
really
tight,
relatively
tight
timelines
for
for
comments.
I
think
they're
they're,
fair,
they're
reasonable,
but
we've
tried
to
keep
things
moving
so
that
so
that
the
vote
can
not.
A
Jerry
is
it
a
fair
summary
to
say
in
looking
at
the
the
projects
that
might
be
eligible
for
this
waiver
it.
It
would
be
substantial
and
meaningful
to
a
utility
like
sunflower
to
get
these
allocated
regionally,
but
for
the
region
it
would
not
be.
It
probably
wouldn't
move
the
needle
much
as
far
as
you
know
what
would
be
spread
to
other
customers.
E
E
Hit
c4
storage
is
a
transmission
only
asset.
There
is
a
revision
request
that
has
been
now
developed
to
incorporate
cogs
recommendations
for
changes
to
the
spp
tariff
and
we
did
voted.
We
did
take
a
look
at
the
revision
request
in
in
our
november
meeting
and
we
expect
to
take
a
vote
on
the
formal
language
final
language
in
just
at
the
december
meeting.
It
also
is
going
through
the
other
stakeholder
working
group
process
and
not
all
of
it.
E
E
The
winter
weather
event
report
was
approved
by
the
spp
board
of
directors
and
members
committee
in
july,
and
this
is
just
a
review
of
the
the
tier
one
recommendations
for
immediate
action.
We
have
a
few
a
couple
of
fuel
assurance,
paul
recommendations
to
develop
policies
that
enhance
fuel
assurance
to
improve
availability
and
reliability
of
generation.
E
Then
the
assessment
evaluate
and
as
applicable,
advocate
for
improvements
in
gas
industry
policies,
including
use
of
gas
price
cap
mechanisms
needed
to
assure
gas
supply,
is
readily
and
affordably
available
during
extreme
events,
and
then
we
have
a
couple
of
resource
planning
and
availability
initiatives
as
well.
The
assessment
of
minimum
reliability,
attributes
needed
and
then
a
policy.
One
policy
issue
is
to
develop
those
policies
to
which
include
required:
performance
of
seasonal
resource
adequacy,
accreditation,
minimum
reliability,
attribute
requirements,
market-based
incentives,
etc.
E
Take
a
look
at
the
initiatives
and
the
submission
to
like
to
look
at
the
the
overall
goals
and
then
to
develop
initiatives
and
scopes
out
those
initiatives,
and
so
that's
been
done.
We've
refined
all
those
and
they're,
and
then
this
most
recent
meeting
we
had
was
last
wednesday,
with
a
panel
of
gas
industry
experts
to
provide
some
background
information
for
the
knowledge
of
iratf
on
on
how
the
gas
industry
works
and
we
heard
from
several
entities
I'll
get
to
the
next
slide.
E
E
Spp
staff
is
currently
working
on
analyzing,
the
the
tier
one
initiatives
and
sub-initiatives
and
analysis
and
design
can
work
concurrently.
They
can,
they
can
be
worked
separately
and
we
have
not
really
delved
into
those
specifics.
Yet
staff
is
has
been
working
since
october
to
develop
some
of
the
reporting
and
the
analysis.
E
I
imagine
that
some
of
that
will
be
discussed
at
that
meeting
as
well
and
in
the
process
of
meeting.
We
have
several
members
who
are
from
the
operating
reliability
or
supply
adequacy
market
and
cost
allocation
working
groups
on
iratf,
but
each
of
those
groups
still
works
separately
on
on
the
areas
within
their
expertise
and
so
they're
doing
a
lot
of
the
background
analysis
on
some
of
on
some
of
the
reliability
issues
on
some
of
the
accreditation
issues,
market
enhancements,
and
so
that's
information,
that's
being
brought
back
to
iratf.
E
B
So
I
I
do
have
a
question
as
it
relates
to
the
accreditation
and
the
accountability
is
the
ultimate
goal
here,
as
they're
gathering
information
in
all
these
pockets
to
get
to
a
granular
level
of
of
a
requirement
for
utility
to
meet,
I
mean
is:
is
that
where
we're
headed
so
that
they
check
the
boxes
that
yes,
we've
attended
to
that?
Yes,
we
can
vouch
for
this.
Is
that
kind
of
on
these
different
pockets
of
working
groups,
where
we,
where
it
is
applicable
that
we
that
that's
where
spp
is
headed.
E
There's
there
are
engineering
methodologies
and
calculations
that
that
generators
are
having
to
perform
to
to
to
assess
the
availability
of
that
energy,
and
so
yes,
it
it's
it's
becoming
more
granular,
I
think
than
it
already
is.
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
information
and
a
lot
of
detail
that
all
that
that
currently
exists.
It's
just
it's
looking
at
it,
we're
looking
at
it
a
little
bit
differently
and
a
lot
of
outage
information.
That's
a
lot
of
that
kind
of
information
is
supplied
to
spp
right
now
and
as
you'll
see
as
you
may
see.
E
Okay,
okay,
so
there's
the
generator
survey
and
here's
here's.
Some
of
the
information
that
was
was
collected
and
you'll
see
some
of
this
information.
This
is
primarily
looking
at
accredited
capacity,
weatherization
efforts
etc,
and
if
you
have
any
specific
questions
about
any
of
these
slides,
but
I
wanted
to
give
you
an
idea
of
what
the
survey
questions
were,
because
these
have
not.
We
have
not
seen
these
or
the
results,
and
I
so
I
can't
really
speak
to
the
granularity
of
the
results.
E
And
there's
a
federal
environmental
regulation,
exemptions
apparently
available
for
some
of
those
emergency
situations,
and
most
of
them
are
able
to
avail
themselves
of
those
without
without
any
particular
waiver,
and
then
there
are
market
resource,
information
and
communication,
and
so
and
the
other
piece
of
that
is
is
as
part
of
this
presentation.
It's
kind
of
an
added
bonus
is
it.
This
was
spp's
summary
of
the
ferc
nerc
findings,
which
they
did
finalize
the
the
report.
It
came
out
last
week
and
they
had
28
recommendations
this.
E
This
discusses
those
28
recommendations
that
were
preliminary
relief,
preliminarily
released,
I
believe
in
late
september,
maybe
early
october,
but
those
28
recommendations
are
summarized
here
and
I
have
not
examined
closely
all
the
details
in
the
the
the
final
report,
but
I
believe
all
those
are
the
same
28
recommendations.
A
lot
of
them
are
winterization
required,
winterization.
E
We
should
have
most
of
the
tier
one,
a
big
portion
of
the
tier
one
addressed,
I
think,
by
august
of
2022,
with
with
final
final
by
november
of
2022,
we've
really
tried
to
kind
of
put
a
push
on
the
immediacy
of
of
the
efforts
for
the
tier
one
initiatives
we
did
have.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
a
presentation
from
the
natural
gas
industry.
The
texas
pipeline
association
made
a
presentation,
as
did
southern
star.
E
This
gas
electric
supply
loop
is
just
basically
a
word,
a
text
version
of
one
of
the
slides
that
the
texas
pipeline
association
supplied
detailing
what
a
lot
of
the
issues
in
texas
at
least,
and
I
think
the
oklahoma
continental
resources
verified.
This
was
true
in
oklahoma,
as
well
had
to
do
a
lot
with
freezing
conditions
at
the
wellhead.
E
E
I
think
some
of
the
I
think
some
of
the
visibility
into
the
lower
levels
like
treating
and
processing
plants
might
have,
they
might
have
been
largely
unregulated.
There
was
not
a
lot
of
visibility
into
into
some
of
those
entities,
etc.
So
they're
working
to
develop
to
to
put
those
rules
and
regulations
in
place
there.
D
Jerry
good
morning
to
you,
first
of
all,
nice
to
see
you
my
friend.
If
I
look
at
slide,
15,
that's
critical
infrastructure
for
gas.
You
have
a
pretty
darn
good
right
right
there.
That's
that's
the
list
if
those
are
subjected
to
load
shedding
at
any
point
along
the
line,
you're
asking
for
trouble
honestly
in
terms
of
trying
to
provide
deliverability
and
reliability.
D
E
The
problem
with
increasing
that
reserve
margin
is,
it
comes
at
a
cost,
and
so
there's
going
to
be
a
big
balance,
balancing
discussion,
I'm
sure
about
how
you
evaluate
costs.
I
know
that's
the
discussion
item
at
the
last
supply
adequacy
working
group
meeting,
because
the
operations
staff
at
spp
has
indicated
that
that
that's
something
that
we
really
that
spp
really
seriously
needs
to
take
a
look
at.
We
don't
know
what
that
might
need
to
to
be
increased
to,
but
it
does
come
at
a
cost
to
rate
payers.
E
When
you
carry
that-
and
I
think
it's
part
of
the
trouble,
the
part
of
the
issue
or
the
concern
is-
is
it
you
know,
spp
seems
to
have
a
lot
of
excess
capacity.
Well,
it
may
have
a
lot
of
excess
capacity,
but
it's
got
to
be
reliable.
It's
got
it's
got
to
show
up
when
it
needs
to
show
up
so
they're,
taking
a
look
at
at
some
of
the
system
operating
limits
and
evaluating
whether
or
not
those
have
been
duly
taken
into
consideration
for
various
forms
of
different
resources.
E
So
that's
something
that's
a
supply
adequacy
working
group
is
we'll
be
taking
a
look
at
I'm
sure
that
information
will
come
into
back
into
iratf
and
since
iratf
is,
is
primarily,
I
mean
it's.
It's
kind
of
considered
a
task
force
of
the
rsc.
We
have
an
rsc
person
who
chairs
it.
There
are
four
four
named
cog
members
on
it,
plus
a
couple
of
ex-officio,
rsc
members
and
cog
members
on
it
as
well,
so
it's
heavily
rsc.
E
A
E
E
It
covers
the
purpose
of
script,
which
I
think
we've
all
covered
before
and
there's
just
a
reminder
that
we
had
five
sub
teams
and
what
they
are
as
on
slide
17.
That's
something
that
we've
discussed
before
too.
In
the
interest
of
time,
we'll
go
to
slide
18.
There
were
35
recommendations
and
11
sub
recommendations,
and
the
primary
focus
going
forward,
at
least
in
the
immediate
going
forward
period,
is
going
to
be
on
this
consolid
plan
consolidated
planning
process
development.
E
There
were
nine
recommendations
and
11
sub
recommendations,
but
you
know
you
were
talking
earlier,
commissioner,
duffy
about
the
kind
of
the
bureaucracy
and
all
the
all
the
things
that
everything
has
to
be
gone
through
and
help
it's
so
time
consuming
this.
The
whole
idea
behind
the
consolidated
planning
process
is
to
maybe
eliminate
some
of
the
multiple
studies
that
are
done
start
looking
at
projects
not
in
their
silos
but
as
as
multiple
projects.
E
And
how
can
you
consolidate
the
planning
processes
on
those
and
reduce
not
only
the
study
time,
that's
involved,
but
maybe
some
of
the
discussion
time
in
these
various
study
groups.
If
you
can
come
to
some
agreement
on
on
the
the
basic
underlying
process
and
then
there's
planning
process
improvements,
there
are
26
recommendations
there,
I'm
going
to
move
to
slide,
19
oops
I'll
stick
there.
E
There
has
been
a
consolidated
planning
process,
development
task
force,
that's
created
that
will
be
focusing
on
on
those
nine
recommendations
and
11
sub
recommendations,
and
I
would
I
guess
I
would
ask
you,
chair
french.
I
don't
know
at
what
point
that
will
get
kicked
off.
If
you
know
I
know
it's
being
discussed.
I
know
they're
trying
to
put
members
on
it:
membership
on
it,
but
I'm
not
sure
when
it
actually
kicks
off
its
price.
A
A
The
the
only
thing
I
would
add
just
from
from
a
time
frame
standpoint,
the
biggest
recommendations
that
are
coming
out
of
here
are
the
initiative
to
clear
the
the
generator
interconnect,
backlog,
queue
and
we
all
know,
there's
there's
more
megawatts
in
the
queue
than
spp
has
load,
and
so
you
know
we
need
to
separate
the
wheat
from
the
chaff
and
we
need
to
get
the
projects
that
really
want
to
get
connected.
We
need
to
get
them
connected
and
so
there's
a
process.
A
I
think
they're
talking
about
that
getting
resolved
sometime,
2023
2024
and
then
that
allows
them
to
start.
They
can't
consolidate
all
the
planning
processes
until
they
clear
that
generator
interconnect
backlog
so
they're
talking
sometime
in
2024
to
get
all
of
the
planning
processes
consolidated
into
a
more
singular
holistic
process,
and
you
know
the
only
thing
I
would
maybe
add
on
that
that
I've
I've
found
interesting
in
some
of
the
presentations.
A
And
there
is
some
cost
to
achieve
over
the
next
few
years
of
developing
a
consolidated
planning
process
and
figuring
out
what
what
goes
and
what
stays.
But
then,
in
the
out
years,
they're
projecting.
You
know
millions
of
dollars
of
annual
savings
by
streamlining
their
planning
processes,
and
so
I
think,
for
the
first
few
years,
it's
extra
cost.
But
then,
once
you
get
to
maybe
year,
three
or
four
or
five
and
beyond
you
start
getting
cumulative
benefit
and
reduced
cost
every
year.
A
From
from
the
the
more
streamlined
planning
process-
and
I
I
think
that's
an
interesting
thing
to
note-
and
that's
just
purely
an
administrative
overhead
type
of
cost,
their
staff
costs
for
having
more
streamlined
process.
That
is
not
necessarily
taking
into
account
the
fact
that
the
ultimate
reason
they're
trying
to
go
down
this
path.
Is
that
they're
going
to
develop
more
optimized,
cost-effective
transmission
solutions,
and
so
those
those
benefits
would
also
perhaps
be
much
larger,
but
there
there
is
expected
to
be
some
reduction
in
spp's
administrative
cost
associated
with
this
initiative.
B
That's
that's
encouraging
to
hear
because
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
machination,
that
that
it's
kind
of
getting
sucked
into
the
black
hole
and
if
we
could
become
more
straightforward
and
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
But
again
you
know
when
you
say
two
or
three
years
out,
it's
kind
of
like
okay,
okay,
nothing.
A
E
A
E
E
Ferc
order
22
is
on
slide
19..
This
is
a
repeat
slide
that
just
kind
of
gives
the
history
I
think
we
can
skip
past
it.
Then
this
has
been
the
the
order.
2222
task
force
has
developed
tariff
language,
which
is
now
in
a
revision
request.
468.,
it's
undergoing
the
stakeholder
comment
and
review
process.
It's
been
had
had
pretty
rigorous
review
and
comment
lots
of
broad
interest
groups
there
addressing
questions.
E
E
E
So
there
are
a
number
of
demand
response
issues
that
that
go
above
and
beyond
2222
that
they
have
have
discovered.
There's
an
issue
of
what
credit
policy
should
exist
for
distributed
energy
resource
aggregators,
there's
nothing
required
in
order.
22
22..
I
don't
even
know
that
it
addresses
it,
but
there
may
be
a
credit
practice
that
needs
to
be
developed
for
them.
So
those
are
some
potential
section.
E
205
filings
that
that
they're,
that
they're
taking
a
look
at
addressing
and
then
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide,
which
is
20
20
22,
we'll
get
to
the
end
of
this
presentation.
Hopefully
this
is
just
a
summation
of
all
of
the
the
votes
that
were
taken
matters
that
were
approved
at
the
spp
board
of
directors.
Meeting
we've
covered
a
lot
of
these
already
the
irs
tf
tier
one
schedule
is.
E
Is
we
had
been
directed
to
develop
a
timeline,
especially
for
those
tier
one
provisions
and
how
soon
we
were
going
to
get
to
them?
That
was
done.
It
was
presented,
they
approved
it
in
terms
of
of
order.
1000
projects,
nextera
energy
resources
is
the
designated
transmission
owner
for
the
wolf
creek
to
blackberry,
345
kv
transmission
line.
The
board
approved
that
and
directed
spp
to
issue
a
notice
to
construct
the
next
era.
They
also
identified
an
alternate
to
that
to
the
for
that
project
that
southwest
transmission
llc
and
then
for.
A
And
sherry-
maybe
we
just
want
to
highlight
that
for
the
commissioners
that
that
will
likely
be
a
sighting
docket
at
some
point
in
the
future,
and
I
I
don't.
I
assume
that
we
will
also
see
a
certificate
case
from
them.
This
is
something
we'll
have
to
talk
to
our
staff
about.
Yes,
I
do
understand,
I
think,
nextera.
A
I
believe
we
approved
an
acquisition
that
they
acquired
gridlines,
that
is
certificated
in
kansas,
so
that'll
be
a
question
for
staff
of.
Are
they
intending
to
rely
on
that
certificate
to
build
the
line
or
will
we'll
be
seeing
a
certificate
case
from
nextera,
but
just
something
to
highlight
that
there
will
be
future
regulatory
activity
with
nextera
on
this
line?
It's
a
it's
a
pretty
significant,
substantial
transmission
line.
E
E
So
there
was
appointed
a
dc
type
congestion,
hedging
task
force
to
develop
a
congestion
hedging
methodology
which
will
be
need
to
be
completed
by
april
15th
of
2022,
so
that
will
be
composed
of
the
market
committee
from
the
market
working
group
from
the
west
entities.
The
market
working
group
from
the
east
entities,
as
well
as
the
cost
allocation
working
group,
will
have
involvement
with
that
as
well.
E
There
was
they
have
a
newly
and
newly
formed,
I
think,
within
the
last
year.
Diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
task
force,
which
has
met
and
recommended
the
development
of
a
a
dei
program
and
they've
got
10
elements
that
are
critical
to
dei
that
are
going
to
govern,
govern
their
internal
operations
at
spp,
hiring
and
recruiting,
but
also
supply
supply
channels,
etc.
So
it's
got
some
internal
and
some
external
components
to
it
that
that
was
adopted,
and
I
think
that
completes
my
presentation
and
I
apologize
that
I
somehow
have
this
technical.
E
B
E
Well,
there's
been,
there's
been
a
task
force,
that's
been
meeting
right
since
I
want
to
say
maybe
february
march,
that
time
and
they've
been
in
meeting
and
meeting
and
it's
it's
there's
a
there's
been
a
lot
of
concern
about
how
those
dc
ties
are
going
to
operate.
Are
they
going
to
be
two-way,
one-way
and
are
they
going
to
be?
Are?
Is
the
market
going
to
have?
Is
there
going
to
be
a
market
component
to
it?
What
is
the
market
component,
because
so
that
so
there's
a
lot
of
detail
involved
in
that
and
congestion?
E
E
Maybe
they
all
are,
I
don't
recall
all
the
details,
but
but
the
flows
may
differ
going
west
to
east
versus
east
to
west
and
they're,
trying
to
figure
out
to
hedge
that
congestion
when
it
occurs
so
that
piece
of
it
it's
a
short
time
frame
right,
I
mean
now
in
april
they're
going
to
have
to,
and
so
it's
that's
one
component
of
the
overall
dc
tie
issue.
Okay,
all
right!
So.
B
Yeah,
thank
you
sherry.
I
just
want
to
say
these
are
so
beneficial
for
me.
They
really
are,
and
I
appreciate
the
effort
you
take
to
send
us
the
slides
ahead
of
time
and
send
us
information
in
between,
but
this
spp
is
such
an
essential
part
of
what
goes
on,
and
so
I
do
believe.
While
you
are
in
the
thick
of
it
and
so
is
chair
french.
B
E
D
D
It's
very
critical
I'd
also
commend
our
chair
french
too,
as
well
for
all
of
the
various
outside
activities
that
he's
involved
in
that's
just
to,
I
think,
fill
his
calendar,
as
I
remember,
you're
being
filled
previously,
sherry,
but
no
it's
it's
quite
helpful
that
we
have
kind
of
a
one-two
punch
with
youtube
guys
backstopping
a
lot
of
things
here
for
kansas
within
this
round.
That's
very
important
thanks
to
both
of
you.
E
A
I'll
add
my
thanks
to
you
sherry
as
well.
As
everybody
knows
sherry,
and
I
are
two
sides
to
the
same
coin.
So
we
appreciate
all
your
work
and
and
your
great
team
member
on
on
these
items
so
with
that
sharia,
if
you
are,
if
you're
all
wrapped
up,
I
am,
I
believe
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
our
scheduled
business
on
today's
agenda
and
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn
second
promotion
and
a
second
to
adjourn
those
in
favor.
Please
vote
aye.