Mina is leading the effort to establish the 2025 PLWG calendar.
Suggestion to have some meetings in-person the day following RPG, and others on the same day if necessary, utilizing WebEx if RPG runs over.
Importance of having enough time for PLWG discussions noted, especially against a robust RPG agenda.
Tentative plan includes identifying two or three in-person meetings and the rest being virtual following RPG.
RPG meetings will be on Tuesdays for 2025 as per their set schedule.
Potential issues with back-to-back meetings and travel considerations were discussed.
Concerns about scheduling conflicts with other ERCOT meetings like TAC and RTC noted.
Acknowledgement of stakeholders' need to balance attendance across various meetings.
Mina agreed to review the schedule for conflicts and finalize the calendar with Susie's input.
▶️ 5 - PGRR115 related to NPRR1234 – Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater PLWG
Floyd expressed concerns with existing language in Section 9.2.5, stating it mixes interconnection equipment specifications with operational instructions.
Floyd recommended amending the language to either remove the phrase 'capable of being operated remotely to comply with an instruction from ERCOT' or allow for a disclaimer ensuring safety and communication protocols.
ERCOT's Agee Springer disagreed with Floyd, arguing the current language only requires equipment capability without specifying operational protocols and cited August comments as addressing safety and communication concerns.
Martha Henson from Oncor supported ERCOT's stance, mentioning that large loads typically have remotely controlled disconnect devices and addressed critical load notifications are covered by Oncor's existing tariffs.
Floyd acknowledged the remote control provision wasn't the main issue but focused on language that might imply ERCOT's instructions override safety exceptions.
A discussion ensued on finding compromise language that maintains safety protocols without unnecessarily complicating planning guides.
The group deliberated on finding a base document to build from, considering comments from Oncor, joint TSP comments, centerpoint comments, and ERCOT comments.
Martha Henson from Oncor presented comments focusing primarily on two separate 1 gigawatt load criteria in PGRR115 and PGRR122.
Oncor proposes merging the 1 GW criteria into the reliability performance criteria section 4112 of the planning guide, as opposed to the current process involving new definitions.
Proposed criteria involve how much load loss is permissible during P1 or P7 contingencies for new large load interconnections, ensuring no more than 1 GW is lost.
Oncor supports earlier joint comments regarding load interconnections subject to stability study requirements.
Discussion on transmission projects being removed from the steady state analysis if they're not in service before a load energizes.
Confusion exists over the definition of transmission service bus, with market participants noting uncertainty.
Oncor to file comments on PGRR122, which covers broader contingencies and proposes a different scope than PGRR115.
ERCOT expressed some support, working with Oncor on simplifying language to avoid defining the TSP bus.
Concerns raised over the application of new criteria across all planning studies, suggesting it be limited to new large load interconnections.
Potential confusion over the new load definition and implications discussed with calls for clarification on criteria applicability.
Understanding sought on criteria applicability to loads connected via short lines or shared towers.
Follow-up needed on specific requirements; next steps include ERCOT filing reply comments by January PLWG.
▶️ 6 - PGRR119 – PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG
Joint commenters provided input, leading to consensus at the PLWG level and being sent to ROS.
After review by ROS, joint commenters' feedback led to the item being returned to PLWG for further discussion.
EDF, Pattern, and others submitted comments intending to clarify and improve upon prior comments, notably addressing OPUC's concerns.
The changes aim to more clearly document operational practices and modeling changes in the planning guide, reflecting ongoing procedures.
Revisions were made to clarify the operational reliability margins and ensure consistent economic evaluation practices, drawing language from NPRR1070.
Clarification on using current operational reliability margins for GTL, unless future changes are specifically expected and quantifiable, was stressed.
Concerns were raised about differentiating stability limits from GTL in planning studies to avoid confusion.
ERCOT described the challenge of predicting future operational margins or limits due to unknown variables and changing operational practices.
Suggestions were made to refine language to clearly permit using best available information while allowing flexibility for future expectations.
Consensus reached to take discussions offline and refine language to be reviewed in January.
Kristin Cook from Southern Power presented comments on PGRR120, suggesting potential improvements in the language.
Cook proposed two main changes: clearer communication to stakeholders engaging in project interconnections, with a reference to section 5.3.1 regarding security screening, and adjustments for existing generators to modify without losing SSO mitigations.
The intent of the first change is to provide more certainty to generator owners currently far along in the interconnection process.
The second change would allow existing generators to modify if SSO has already been fully mitigated, alleviating potential disincentives.
Freddy Garcia from ERCOT Operations acknowledged the comments and requested time to thoroughly review them, proposing to revisit the matter in January.
Sunil Dhakal from Lone Star Transmission expressed disagreement with the blanket ban implied by the PGRR, as it does not allow for SSR mitigation or identification of susceptibilities to SSO events.
The discussion also focused on reliability concerns and difficulties in mitigating these complex problems, with ERCOT emphasizing reliability as a priority.
ERCOT is open to further discussions with Lone Star and other stakeholders regarding concerns.
The PLWG agreed to table the item for further discussion.
▶️ 8 - PGRR122 – Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load - ERCOT
Jeff Billo from ERCOT Operations gave a presentation on agenda item PGRR122, which was also presented at DWG the previous week.
The discussion centered on the Southern Cross (now Southern Spirit) DC tie project and related reliability performance criteria.
The Public Utility Commission (PUC) issued directives, including Directive 9, which required ERCOT to study ancillary services for the project.
ERCOT's studies indicated that losing over 1400 megawatts of demand could lead to frequency excursions and potential generator trips under certain conditions, especially low inertia.
In response to these findings, ERCOT filed and got approval for NPRR1034 to limit DC tie exports to ensure frequency stability.
Implementation of NPRR1034 is on hold until the project construction is complete.
