4.1 - At its Sept 9 meeting, ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 - related to NPRR1180 - Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses - ERCOT’s Aug 28 comments - after desktop edits.
ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 related to NPRR1180.
PGRR107 pertains to the inclusion of forecasted load in planning analyses after desktop edits.
An action item was assigned to review and revise the planning guide regarding capital 'L' and small 'l' load terminology.
Changes made around the load terminology resulted in desktop edits and were endorsed by ROS.
The planning guide will be reviewed as a broader document to reflect changes in load terminology.
4.2 - 2025 PLWG meetings, RPG/PLWG joint meetings or standalone.
Discussion on whether PLWG meetings should continue to be held jointly with RPG or as standalone meetings.
Concern over lengthy agendas for both RPG and PLWG, raising the question of adequate time allocation.
Benefits of joint meetings include travel efficiency, allowing attendees to address both meetings in one trip.
Suggestions for joint meetings to be scheduled on adjacent days (day before or day after) to accommodate overruns and ensure adequate discussion time.
Challenge noted in scheduling due to room availability; potential fallback to WebEx for split meetings deemed less optimal for travel purposes.
Acknowledgement that predicting the length and scheduling of ERCOT meetings is difficult, thus complicating planning.
Consideration of future meeting structure adjustments due to changing and potentially lengthier meeting times.
Possibility of canceling and rescheduling meetings based on agenda size to manage travel and accommodation more effectively.
Reminder about 2025 PLWG leadership opportunities with discussions and nominations starting around November, transitioning in February.
5 - PGRR115 related to NPRR1234 – Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
Martha Henson from Oncor presented comments on the PGRR document.
Oncor categorized comments into two buckets: modifications through red lines and items seeking more information.
Proposed edits to Quarterly Stability Assessment (QSA) language for loads, specifically clarifying responsibility for providing a dynamic load model.
Suggested ERCOT review the model early in the process to confirm appropriateness for the QSA.
Discussion on separating load QSA provisions to streamline approach for loads.
Request to add distribution providers in the LLIS process to ensure specific mention.
Proposed to strike paragraph C in section 9.2.1, citing inconsistencies with paragraph B regarding capacity increases and existing load facilities.
Edits to 9.2.2 to clarify distinctions in LCP preliminary and final processes.
9.2.3 clarifies that ILLE is responsible for providing dynamic load model to TSP, and for notifying TSP if the model is updated by the customer.
Opposed ERCOT’s broad prohibition on customer demand increases post-LLIS process.
Added small language changes in 9.3.2-9.5 covering kick-off meetings, certification of distribution providers, study case projects, interconnection agreements, and financial security.
Insistence that load commissioning plans should be managed by TSP and follow LCP without extra back-and-forth with ERCOT.
Requests for more clarity and possible templates from ERCOT for LCPs and LLIS entry.
Discussion ensued on whether temporary interconnections via remotely operated switches will undergo comprehensive studies.
ERCOT emphasized necessity for POI changes to go through large load interconnection process.
Concerns about provisions for remotely operated interruption devices and potential safety issues.
The need for ERCOT to further clarify and align planning guide language, taking into context how 'large load' is defined and applied across different sections.
6 - PGRR117 – Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Change PLWG - 30 min PGRR117
Resiliency assessment and criteria reflect PUC rule change, second presentation at PLWG.
Comments received from LCRA, discussed by Andrew in absence of Blake.
Wordsmithing changes to item one: change position of reliability/resiliency, 'must' to 'shall'.
Clarifications on resiliency assessment cases, inclusion of scaled RTP cases as discussed by Robert Golen of ERCOT.
Contingency set clarification:
P0, P1, and P2.1 as defined by NERC TPL-001.
Common tower outages as defined in ERCOT planning guide §4.1.1.1.
Proposal to strike power supply language in item B, deemed redundant and covered elsewhere.
Wordsmithing in section 4.1.2, strike unnecessary phrases.
Add duration consideration for load loss impact as suggested by CenterPoint, debate over its necessity and emphasis.
Clarification required on 'load loss' terminology to align with planning guide language.
Suggestion to keep 'impact' broad to incorporate various factors without singling out duration.
ERCOT plans to study more scenarios in future assessments based on stakeholder feedback.
Discussion on preventing system instability under extreme weather conditions as part of resiliency.
Risk of piecemeal studies was acknowledged, intention to cover more comprehensively in future assessments.
Questions Raised
Impact of adding 'duration' in resiliency criteria, whether it should be considered separately or under 'impact'.
Necessity and placement of generation assumptions in item two versus item three.
Clarification on coincident vs. non-coincident load values for regional transmission plan study cases.
Definition of 'load loss' vs. 'load shedding' and how to align terminology with current planning guides and protocols.
Preventing instability as part of resiliency criteria and its relationship with existing reliability and GTC criteria.
Exact scope and criteria RMS will use to recommend resiliency projects.
Comments From Stakeholders
Concerns over adding duration raised by Laurie Block, supported by Mark Bruce and others.
General preference for seeing comprehensive package including NPRR expected from ERCOT.
Need to ensure ERCOT guidelines align with both legislative requirements and existing planning guides.
Responses From ERCOT
ERCOT acknowledged ongoing internal discussions and intentions to revise language for clarity.
Commitment to incorporate various feedback and re-evaluate positioning of generation assumptions and load values.
Assurance of considering broader spectrum of factors under the term 'impact'.
Working towards aligning terminologies used in different documents and guidelines.
7 - NPRR1247 – Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects
Laurie Block raised a question about ERCOT's response to TIEC's comments on timeline consistency.
Ping Yang explained ERCOT's approach to studying-years, up to six years out due to uncertainties in the future.
Yang clarified that ERCOT compares annual savings with annual revenue requirements for projects.
Yang confirmed that ERCOT is open to adding clarifications to address stakeholders' concerns.
Dylan Preas brought up reviewing the NPRR1247 language and suggested having ERCOT’s documents for reference.
Constance McDaniels Wyman, ETT & APSC, expressed support for NPRR1247 but noted potentially confusing language and suggested improvements so that the CCS components don't appear to point back to the PCS.
ERCOT mentioned the development of a white paper to add transparency to the congestion cost savings test process.
Mark Bruce sought clarification on the current process and a historical review of ERCOT's application of specific cost-benefit considerations.
Stakeholder questions focused on details related to economic benefit calculations, inflation factors, and price responsive loads.
Concerns were raised about the legal binding nature of the white paper and whether it needs to be referenced in protocols.
Matt Arth from ERCOT explained that the white paper adds clarity but does not have the same legal binding as protocols.
Discussion on potentially including the white paper by reference in NPRR for future updates.
Next Steps: The discussion will be tabled for the next meeting until ROS formally assigns it to the PLWG (Planning Working Group) for further discussion.
