Meeting Summary – 10/08/24 Texas Energy Fund Advisory Committee

1 – Panel 1 – Mitchell Ross, VP & General Counsel, NextEra Energy Resources – Application to TEF

• Mitchell Ross, VP & General Counsel of NextEra Energy Resources, expressed surprise at seeing their name on the Texas Energy Fund list from PUCT.
• NextEra never committed or applied for any project seeking Texas Energy Fund support.
• Discussions were held with Aegle Power but no equity commitment was made nor any letter signed.
• A letter dated May 28, 2024, submitted to PUCT claimed a $252 million equity commitment from NextEra, which they view as fraudulent.
• The supposed letter was signed by an employee, Matt Handel, who was involved briefly but did not sign any such document.
• NextEra did engage in initial discussions and sent a non-binding draft letter of intent to Aegle, which was unsigned and different from the fraudulent letter.
• NextEra chose not to collaborate with Aegle; this decision was communicated to Aegle’s investment banker on July 11.
• NextEra learned of Kathleen Smith’s criminal history but deemed it inappropriate to continue discussions at that point.
• No completed deal was ever vetted through NextEra’s internal approval protocols.
• NextEra reported the fraudulent letter incident to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and is cooperating with law enforcement investigations.

1.1 – Chair Schwertner to Mitchell Ross – Fraudulent Letter

• NextEra received a fraudulent letter on August 30, which contained false statements about board commitments.
• NextEra informed the PUC about the fraudulent letter on September 3.
• The PUC withdrew the application from consideration on September 4.
• The criminal history of Miss Smith was discovered by NextEra in early May from a source and a press release by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas.
• NextEra acknowledged errors in continuing discussions with Aegle Power despite knowing the truth of the principal’s background.
• NextEra has contacted the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas but not the Texas Attorney General’s Office.
• NextEra is willing to cooperate with any law enforcement investigations.

1.2 – Sen. Huffman to Mitchell Ross – Due diligence

• The discussion involved questions about the due diligence process of the deal team responsible for identifying viable projects.
• The deal team was aware of the criminal background of a principal early, but the decision not to pursue was due to other commercial issues.
• The process took longer than expected but ultimately resulted in not pursuing the project by mid-July.
• There was no contact from Deloitte during the process, despite a fraudulent letter claiming an equity commitment.
• A representative from the company contacted the PUCT when their name appeared on a list without their knowledge.
• There was an expectation for due diligence by contacting NextEra to verify an equity commitment, but NextEra had not seen the actual application.
• Concerns were raised about the level of confidence in the submission under penalty of perjury.
• The concept of ‘Know Your Customer’ (KYC) was discussed, emphasizing its importance for validation in the financial industry.
• There was criticism of Deloitte for not applying KYC principles effectively in this situation.

1.3 – Rep. Hunter to Mitchell Ross – Background & Fraudulent Letter

• Mitchell Ross is the Vice President and General Counsel of NextEra Energy Resources.
• NextEra Energy Resources is a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, Inc.
• NextEra Energy Resources does not support the application concerning the fraudulent letter.
• A false statement was made indicating that NextEra made an equity commitment to a project, which was not true.
• The case has been reported to the authorities after receiving the equity commitment letter on August 30.
• NextEra Energy conducted an investigation into the matter and confirmed the fraudulent statement.
• Aegle power company’s representatives did not show up to the hearing; the company has a past criminal situation from 2017.
• Discussion around potential enforcement rules for hearing attendance due to repeated absenteeism.
• NextEra’s internal and external lobbyists in Texas were named.
• NextEra Energy primarily invests in renewable energy projects and owns a transmission company named Lone Star.

1.4 – Chair Spiller to Mitchell Ross – Texas Penal Code

Mitchell Ross was asked about possible criminal offenses under Texas law as part of his role as general counsel for NextEra.

• NextEra is reviewing potential civil claims related to the incident but has not made conclusions on criminal liability.
• Criminal liability conclusions are considered to be the responsibility of criminal authorities.
• NextEra believes it’s important for authorities to be aware of the situation given historical context.
• The review focuses on potential civil causes of action, with no specific conclusions mentioned.
• The situation is described as unusual, based on Ross’s 30-year experience at the company.

1.5 – Rep. Hernandez to Mitchell Ross – Internal Policies

• Discussion about the knowledge of Miss Smith’s criminal history by the deal team.
• Lack of specific internal policy prohibiting dealings with individuals with criminal history.
• Evaluation of investment opportunities is primarily focused on viability rather than principal’s criminal history.
• A fraudulent signature of Mr. Handel was involved in the discussions.
• Discussion on the potential mishandling of signatures and documents, and communication with the US Attorney’s Office.
• Support expressed for the Texas Energy Fund opportunity and the grid reliability in Texas.
• Investments in renewables highlighted with a 20 billion investment to date in Texas.
• Consideration of thermal generation and natural gas as part of the investment strategy.
• Mention of NextEra’s interest in the Texas energy market and diversity of generation portfolio.
• Introduction of Deloitte representatives as contracted administrators for the Texas Energy Fund.

1.6 – Rod Kleinhammer, Principal, Deloitte on their commitment to TEF

• Rod Kleinhammer, a principal with Deloitte, emphasized their commitment to the Texas Energy Fund (TEF) program.
• Kleinhammer expressed the importance of trust placed in Deloitte by ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission.
• As a long-term Texas resident, Kleinhammer sees the project as personally significant, especially after the challenges faced during Winter Storm Uri.
• Increasing state power generation capacity and securing the grid to meet growing energy demand is a priority.
• Deloitte intends to enhance risk and reputational checks for due diligence before releasing information on the Texas Energy Fund loan applications.
• They have adjusted their processes to ensure that no funding is approved without a thorough review.
• Deloitte is committed to supporting the prudent administration of the Texas Energy Fund and looks forward to collaboration.

2 – Panel 2 – Rod Kleinhammer – Background & Information relayed to consultants

• Rod Kleinhammer is a Senior Partner at Deloitte, focusing on the state of Texas account.
• His background is mainly in Medicaid enterprise systems and IT consulting, not directly in energy.
• Kleinhammer holds an executive-level position but is not on the Deloitte board.
• He reports to the state and local higher education leader for the US.
• There was a discussion about having more senior management attend the meeting, but Kleinhammer was specifically asked to be present.
• Kleinhammer confirms he has authority to sign, amend contracts, and handle financial obligations like penalties and restitutions concerning the Texas Energy Fund contract.

2.1 – Chair Schwertner to Chris May, Principal with Deloitte – Background & Due Diligence

• Chris May is a principal at Deloitte with a role leading the firm’s Texas Enterprise or energy fund.
• His background includes experience in e-discovery, forensic investigations, and anti-money laundering.
• May is responsible for teams working on KYC (Know Your Customer) at Deloitte.
• He has been a Texas partner for twelve years and currently manages 130 people on the energy fund project.
• The project started with 45 people and increased to 130, with 60 individuals currently engaged in the due diligence phase.
• This energy project is May’s sole client engagement, though he leads a practice on a national level at Deloitte.
• The committee received a one-page testimony from May to discuss further questions.

2.2 – Chair Schwertner to Principals from Deloitte – Application Review

• Chair Schwertner expressed frustration and embarrassment over the lack of basic protocols during the application review process with Deloitte.
• The key issue centered around a failure to perform due diligence, specifically citing ‘Know Your Customer’ (KYC) procedures.
• Schwertner emphasized the requirement for basic checks during the application process, such as identifying conflicts of interest and verifying applicant reliability.
• Discussion on the contractual obligations of Deloitte, highlighting their failure to adhere fully to terms outlined, including significant items such as deliverables and conflict of interest declarations.
• There was a call for restitution due to Deloitte’s failure, referencing a PUC request for a 10% clawback on contractual payments.
• Request for a commitment from Deloitte to agree and pay some restitution to the state of Texas was made, but Deloitte had no signed agreement at the time of the meeting.
• Deloitte executives indicated progress was made in discussions, but approvals were still pending from their internal leadership.
• The broader legal and contractual implications of this oversight were discussed with potential subpoenas mentioned for executives involved in decision-making approvals.
• Reaffirmation of the requirement from Deloitte to provide a formal, signed reconciliation to meet the demands outlined by the PUC and satisfy the state’s requirements.

2.3 – Sen. Huffman to Rod Kleinhammer – Value of accounts in the State of Texas

• Rod Kleinhammer leads the Texas account, valued over $200 million, primarily involving technology transformation.
• A specific contract related to Texas Energy accounts for 7-10% of their business.
• The overall contract for their current project is $74 million over four years, with more work in the first two years.
• Kleinhammer confirms the potential impact of a 10% negotiation-based fee reduction would be $7.4 million.
• Deloitte was involved in the selection process that started with 72 applicants, heavily participating with 45 employees.
• The application review process initially didn’t involve direct interaction with applicants to maintain an unbiased evaluation.
• Kleinhammer agrees that keeping the process unbiased by not contacting applicants was flawed and should be revised.
• Public and committee concerns were raised about Deloitte’s adherence to contract commitments and its accountability to Texas taxpayers.
• Chairman Hunter pressed for improvements in Deloitte’s evaluation process and transparency regarding their due diligence procedures.
• A contractual cap increase from $72.4 million to $107 million took place due to increased volume and due diligence requirements.

2.4 – Rep. Hunter to Deloitte Principals – Authority

• Legislation filed by Chairman Schwertner was passed by both the Senate and the House, confirmed by the public of Texas in a November election.
• There are issues in the process related to attendance and management, not by legislators but by others responsible for executing the process.
• Rep. Hunter questioned if the Deloitte representative had full authority to speak and act without needing further approval.
• The Deloitte representative admitted they could speak on the contract but required approval for signing and full authority was with two other individuals.
• Deloitte was hired by the State of Texas, specifically the Public Utility Commission of Texas, for a project with an initial four-year contract worth up to $170 million, currently scoped at $74 million.
• Deloitte admitted to making errors and omissions in their process, particularly in not contacting applicants early enough and has acknowledged a mistake.
• Rep. Hunter pressed on whether Deloitte informed their errors and omissions company, suggesting they report back to their general counsel.

2.5 – Chair Spiller to Rod Kleinhammer – Executing Agreement

• Chair Spiller questioned Deloitte’s willingness to execute an agreement requested by the Public Utility Commission of Texas regarding a 10% penalty or reduction.
• Deloitte’s representative, Rod Kleinhammer, indicated that while they are close to an agreement, they cannot execute it yet.
• Discussion ensued about who at Deloitte has the authority to sign contracts with the necessary approval.
• There was a focus on Deloitte’s responsibility in screening applicants and their failure to contact certain applicants, specifically regarding NextEra.
• Chairman questioned whether Deloitte should be paid for work perceived as incomplete due to the lack of communication with applicants like NextEra.
• Modifications were made to Deloitte’s processes following their failure to contact certain companies.
• The discussion included implications should Deloitte not respond appropriately, including possible termination of the contract.
• There was acknowledgment of external pressures and the legislative consequences if Deloitte fails to comply.

2.6 – Sen. Johnson to Rod Kleinhammer – Initial Objective

• There were 72 applications for the TEF loans.
• The initial objective was to comply with the vision communicated by the PUC, focusing on having the right generation in the appropriate places.
• Programs and projects fitting the vision were prioritized before assessing the viability of said projects and participants.
• The process of narrowing down applicants from 72 to 20 should have included more thorough research.
• Regret was expressed over a lack of thorough vetting prior to announcing the final 17 projects.
• Searches for sponsor names during the application process did not reveal any issues.
• Future processes need to ensure more thorough vetting at earlier stages.
• There are three more programs pending: a bonus program, a battery backup program, and a non-ERCOT program.
• $1.8 billion and $1 billion portions are to be engaged similarly in the future.
• An ethical wall exists between teams to prevent conflicts of interest in determining projects.
• Emphasized the importance of communication and ensuring legislative confidence in the process following recent missteps.

2.7 – Sen. Huffman to Rod Kleinhammer – Investment from the State of Texas

• Deloitte has secured over $1.32 billion in contracts with the state of Texas since 2016, averaging about $250 million annually.
• Sen. Huffman acknowledged that Texas is one of Deloitte’s largest customers.
• Current contracts discussed involve a minimum of $74 million over four years, with a maximum potential spend of $107 million.
• There was acknowledgment of a mistake by Deloitte and emphasis on the need for the firm to address and rectify it.
• Discussion highlighted the gravity of financial responsibilities and fiduciary duties owed to the public.
• Senator called for common sense in managing the significant impacts of these contracts on Texas citizens.
• Emphasis on the importance of resolving the issues to ensure long-term grid stability and reliability for Texas.
• Senator expressed frustration with past legislative challenges and urged Deloitte to uphold its reputation by resolving the issue.

2.8 – Rep. Hunter’s comments to Deloitte Principals

• Rep. Hunter requests Deloitte to prepare a detailed memo for both chairs due in 1 week.
• Deloitte is asked to address how they will gain confidence moving forward.
• The memo should include guardrails and checklists to reassure the legislature.
• Rep. Hunter emphasizes the need for detailed specifics rather than a one-page report.
• The report should outline changes from prior procedures and how they will protect the integrity of the Texas Energy fund.

2.9 – Chair Hernandez’s comments to Deloitte Principals

• Chair Hernandez expressed disappointment at Deloitte’s response concerning recent errors, highlighting the lack of an adequate apology to taxpayers.
• There was an expectation for more comprehensive documentation or presentation, beyond the brief one-page submission provided.
• The discussion included plans to refund misappropriated taxpayer dollars.
• The need for written documentation was emphasized to ensure trust and transparency in Deloitte’s work.
• Concerns were raised about the adequacy of due diligence, referencing a simple investigation into Aegle Power, LLC and its manager Kathleen Smith, who has a criminal record.
• The simplicity of the process to uncover these issues was contrasted with Deloitte’s substantial fees, suggesting better outcomes should be achieved for such taxpayer expense.

2.10 – Chair Schwertner to Rod Kleinhammer – Integrity

• Rod Kleinhammer has been with Deloitte for 32 years and considers it a reputable firm with high integrity.
• There is a discussion regarding Deloitte’s relationship with NextEra Energy Resources LLC, represented by Mr. Ross, who was present during the meeting.
• Kleinhammer hopes clients maintain their trust in Deloitte and believes they will resolve current issues to continue serving Texas effectively.
• The conversation highlights the importance of Deloitte’s reputation, especially concerning how they are perceived by both large and smaller states if issues with Texas are not addressed satisfactorily.
• Chair Schwertner emphasizes the expectation for Deloitte to address and resolve issues promptly, mentioning an anticipated written response within a week.

3 – Panel 3 – PUCT Chair Thomas Gleeson – TEF Applications

• PUCT Chair Thomas Gleeson offered apologies regarding an error in handling generation projects.
• Acknowledged responsibility for Deloitte’s oversight.
• Confirmed fraudulent applications involving lies and false statements, leading to referral to the Attorney General’s office.
• Stated $11 million was paid to Deloitte by August out of a $17 million total.
• Declared non-negotiable demand for $7.3 million, representing 10% of Deloitte’s base contract to be refunded.
• Expressed regret over one project’s negative impact overshadowing positive legislative work.
• Mentioned upcoming changes to prevent recurrence of such issues.
• Executive Director Connie Corona was set to detail changes and take questions.

3.1 – Connie Corona, PUCT Executive Director – Changes to TEF Applications

• Started with 17 loan projects in the due diligence phase, one has been denied.
• Committed to moving forward with the program despite the denial.
• Strengthened oversight process to address issues that led to the denial.
• All loan recipients must complete a 4 to 6 month due diligence process before signing a loan agreement.
• Enhanced oversight by meeting with 16 applicants and conducting site visits to verify their legitimacy.
• Internal auditors and external consultants Deloitte are reviewing policies and procedures.
• Setting up checkpoints and sampling Deloitte’s work to ensure proper execution.
• A 10% reduction from Deloitte is imposed to correct flawed review execution.
• Acknowledgment of the oversight that allowed a criminal history case to be considered.

3.2 – Chair Schwertner to Connie Corona – Responsibility

• Connie Corona acknowledged responsibility for not addressing issues effectively.
• Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) is the program administrator as per the law and bill.
• An outside contractor, Deloitte, was engaged for financial checks, a common practice in various government levels.
• PUC relied too heavily on Deloitte’s reputation instead of performing their oversight duties.
• There was a need for better checks and balances within PUC as the program’s ultimate administrator.
• The PUCT gave the final approval of 17 list items for due diligence over a two-day timeframe.
• Deloitte managed an application website but PUC had access and oversight responsibility throughout the process.
• Chairman stressed the importance of being involved with contractors and conducting additional analysis.
• Follow-up questions introduced new topics, indicating a move to different discussion areas.

3.3 – Rep. Hunter’s comments to PUCT

• Rep. Hunter addressed PUC’s admission of mishandling communication.
• Emphasized the importance of communication by the Public Utility Commission.
• Supported the notion that the program is fundamentally good, with agreement from Senator Schwertner.
• Stressed the need for PUC to be transparent and communicate openly with the legislature.
• Asserted the independence of the Texas grid from federal jurisdiction.
• Inquired about the progress with Deloitte regarding the $7.3 million return, indicating it stands at 10% currently.

3.4 – Sen. Huffman to Connie Corona – Plan for Megawatts

• Initial project submission was $74 million; finalized to around $73 million.
• Approval from LBB is not required to exceed $74 million.
• Base contract was envisioned to be no less than $73 million, with a potential 10% deduction considered.
• PUC has plans for the funds from a project that is not moving forward; approximately 1500 MW can be allocated to new loans or completion bonus grants.
• Sen. Huffman prefers bringing more power online and providing opportunities for additional companies.
• PUC acknowledges the gap caused by a major project dropping; they plan to finance 10,000 MW with a combination of completion bonuses and loans.
• Completion bonuses and loans run on the same timeline, and projects must meet specific criteria for bonuses.
• PUC uses a mix of methods and prioritizes new loan projects over completion bonus grants.
• There is an emphasis on rapidly adding new dispatchable generation to the Texas grid, aiming for at least 10 gigawatts.

3.5 – Sen. Johnson to Connie Corona – Windfall for Generators

• Discussion on the concept of headroom related to completion bonuses versus loans.
• Senator Johnson expressed concerns about the market signals sent to generators and potential new entrants.
• The program’s goal was to introduce more gas-fired generation to the grid quickly.
• Concerns about whether completion bonuses for fast-tracking projects represent a windfall for generators.
• Discussion on the potential of using a hybrid approach, including both loans and grants, to complete projects.
• Clarification that grants applications could open in January 2025, with informal interest from companies.
• Emphasis on original plans including diverse generation types and transmission benefits.
• A 1.2 gigawatt project dropped, but there wasn’t a complete collapse of original vision.
• The program aims to enhance grid resilience through diverse locations, project sizes, and generation technologies.
• Confirmation that the purpose was not the building of new plants for new loads but rather stabilizing existing grid adequacy.
• Acknowledgement of potential outcomes such as inadvertently incentivizing generation for new entrants.
• Existing market mechanisms allow for power sales to new entrants, emphasizing the necessity of the program.
• Assurance that new generation projects might not require additional transmission infrastructure.
• ERCOT analyzes project applications to address transmission constraints and consider consumer pricing impacts.

3.6 – Senator Johnson – Questions for Thomas Gleeson

• Hyperscale AI data centers are a significant new load in Texas, potentially adding a gig and a half of power demand.
• Market reforms by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) are crucial to address the integration of these data centers.
• AI data centers are having private discussions with ERCOT about bringing their own generation to meet their power needs.
• A toured facility had a load of around 1400 MW, highlighting the large power demand of these centers.
• If AI data centers bring their own generation, it may reduce the need for new transmission infrastructure.
• AI data centers prioritize speed in their operations and may bring their own power generation to expedite market entry.

3.7 – Rep. Hunter to PUCT Chair & Exec. Director – Complying with TEF Application Process

• Questions were asked about compliance with the TEF loan application process; Aegle did not fully comply.
• PUC confirmed confidentiality of the TEF loan application data in mid-August, except in cases of fraud.
• Discussion on potential conflicts of interest related to Deloitte being a client of NextEra; PUC plans to conduct internal checks and understand policies better moving forward.
• Negotiation strategies discussed for compensating companies when amounts owed exceed recoupable amounts, preferring reduction in future payments for administrative ease.
• Confidence expressed in other viable applicants within the application process portfolio.
• Rules for backup power package and out-of-ERCOT region projects have been drafted and are in process, but not fully finalized.
• Acknowledgment of ongoing work on the backup power package and appreciation for efforts in moving forward with these projects.

3.8 – Sen. Johnson’s comments to PUCT

• Patrick Engineering was hired by the PUC to assist with the project.
• An initial report identified 30,000 critical facilities statewide.
• The challenge is determining which facilities should qualify for funding.
• There’s $1.8 billion allocated for the project, with potential for another $5 billion tranche, or $900 million in the meantime.
• The committee involved various members, including legislative and private industry representatives.
• There are unresolved decisions around the allocation of grants vs. loans.
• Backup power availability is a primary goal for financially unable entities.
• ERCOT may use backup power packages as a grid load management tool during emergencies.
• The PUC and ERCOT are working on mechanisms for the use of backup power packages in emergencies.
• Contentious issues include backup power package ownership and whether they should be vendor-owned with long-term contracts.
• Discussions among PUC, private industry, and committees are ongoing and productive.
• Preference for technologies providing more than 48-hour backup power is being considered.
• Senator Middleton and Representative Hernandez represent areas affected by grid issues and are keen on extended backup power solutions.
• Public testimony was welcomed, with individuals like Larry Linenschmidt and Madeline Highsmith providing input.

4 – Panel 4 – Larry Linenschmidt, Hill Country Institute – Testimony

• Larry Linenschmidt introduced himself as the executive director of the Hill Country Institute and a former vice president of a major bank.
• Texas has an opportunity to lead in clean energy with new natural gas plants potentially becoming the cleanest electric generators in the world.
• The state’s air pollution problem was highlighted with issues like ozone action alerts and climate change impacts leading to economic consequences.
• The natural gas industry contributes significantly to air pollution and global warming due to methane leaks and emissions.
• Recommendations included using state-of-the-art pollution control technologies and carbon capture for new plants, and updating technologies every three years.
• Suggested siting gas-fired plants at least 3 miles away from residential areas.
• Encouraged enhancement of the Texas Energy Fund to include zero-emission technologies, energy efficiency, and demand response incentives.
• Recommended contracting a lending organization to administer loan funds, separating lending from regulatory functions to avoid conflicts of interest.
• Emphasized the importance of strong credit backing for assets and promoting short-term loans.

4.1 – Madeline Highsmith – Testimony

• Madeline Highsmith introduced herself and mentioned she resides in Llano County.
• Discussed companies joining the grid with plans for own capacity generation and strong balance sheets.
• Reference to discussions with Senator Johnson about this issue.
• Concern over Texas taxpayers funding grants and loans to these companies.
• Mentioned an expansion of the grid with significant activity ongoing.
• Highlighted that the Texas attorney general acknowledged six election contests against the Texas election fund.
• Expressed concerns about the legality of current processes and applications due to ongoing election contests.
• Noted actions taken by Governor Abbott and Secretary Nelson bypassing the judiciary.
• Advised awareness of ongoing legal issues to avoid potential complications.

4.2 – Senator Johnson to Madeline Highsmith

• Loans and grants from the Texas Energy Fund are designated solely for generators.
• These funds are not for new loads, data centers, oil companies, or corporations like Microsoft.
• Distribution of funds or acceptance of applications will commence after election contests conclude.
• Public testimony registration has closed.

4.3 – Jarrett Woodward – Testimony

• Jarrett Woodward testified as a Texas citizen representing himself.
• Woodward expressed confusion about why the committee meeting was occurring.
• He referenced SB2627, stating that its effect is contingent on a constitutional amendment that has not yet taken effect.
• Woodward criticized the Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the committee for acting without authority related to SB2627.
• He accused the committee of hypocrisy and fraud against Texas taxpayers.
• Woodward referenced discussions about SB6 and stated that actions taken are null and void due to a gubernatorial proclamation.
• The testimony concluded with a thank you from the committee to another participant, Mr. Ross, for his attendance.

5 – Chair Schwertner – Final Comments

• The importance of oversight in managing taxpayer dollars and implementing new programs.
• Oversight has been a longstanding practice through various committees over many years.
• Legislative oversight ensures laws are executed with intended purpose and protect constituents.
• Commitment to administer programs under the Texas Energy Fund appropriately.
• No dollars have been spent on electricity generation companies yet.
• Efforts are being made to recoup funds spent on the fund administrator, Deloitte.
• Future committee meetings may be held to ensure program effectiveness.
• Goal to maintain an adequate, reliable, and resilient energy grid for Texas.

6 – Adjourn

• The Chair thanked all members.
• The Texas Energy Fund advisory committee was adjourned.
• Adjournment is subject to the will of the chairs.