Frame

Meeting Summary - 05/22/24 TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor Staff Writer
06/05/2024

<a href="/sharing/?token=62890b98-a3b8-4170-8ba4-333013959817">2</a>. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote) <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The minutes from the April 15th, 2024 TAC meeting were approved unanimously and added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8315bc42-9160-4eff-8e60-9542071326af">3</a>. Meeting Updates <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The board approved all revision requests except for NOGRR245, which was remanded to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The PUC approved RMGRR180.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=83d2c454-9b44-44c3-9972-93d3c4022d80">4</a>. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ann Boren presented the Revision Request Summary, highlighting impacts and ERCOT/IMM opinions on various NPRRs and PGRRs.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/06/Revision%20Request%20Summary.png" width="487" height="365" /> 5 PRS Report <a href="/sharing/?token=84abbf10-5726-4a4d-a2ec-189daa352b94">5.1</a>  NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1198 sponsored by EDF Renewables (Alex Miller), allows transmission owners to operate their grid and choose which topology goes to SCED</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bryan Sams (Calpine) abstained, expressing a preference for a SCED solution</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion by Kevin Hanson, seconded by Blake Holt (LCRA), was made to recommend approval</li> </ul> ○  NPRR1198 as recommended by PRS in the 05/09 PRS report ○  PGRR113 as recommended by 05/02 ROS report ○  NOGRR258 as recommended by ROS in the 05/02 ROS report ○  (approved with 4 abstentions) <a href="/sharing/?token=90204909-e0b8-47c2-8541-e5e5fbde94f1">5.2</a>  NPRR1218, REC Program Changes Per P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.173, Renewable Energy Credit Program <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1218, sponsored by ERCOT, updates the REC trading program to comply with PUC substantive rules</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of NPRR1218, as recommended by PRS in the 05/09/24 PRS Report, with the 03/05/24 Impact Analysis incorporating Reliant’s 04/04 comments.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=a4921367-ac82-4e0e-b8b4-6dfa81351de7">5.3</a> NPRR1220, Market Restart Approval Process Modifications <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposed process requires Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and ERCOT Board approval, with an alternative mechanism to ERCOT Board approval where circumstances require it.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of NPRR1220 as recommended by PRS on May 9 and submitted by ERCOT with the 3/20/24 Impact Analysis without discussion.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=50cc6ab6-3176-4e55-afc1-6af58ccead91">5.4</a>   NPRR1222, Public Utility Commission of Texas Approval of the Methodology for Determining Ancillary Service Requirements <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"> The proposed process elevates the approval of “ERCOT’s Methodologies for Determining Minimum Ancillary Service Requirements” from the ERCOT Board of Directors to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC unanimously voted to recommend approval of ERCOT sponsored of NPRR1222 as recommended by PRS on May 9 with the 3/20/24 Impact Analysis without discussion</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=db3fe2eb-6eb3-41c3-9809-8f416384cf06">5.5</a> NPRR1223, Addition of TA Contact Information Into TDSP Application Form <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updates the Transmission and/or Distribution Service Provider (TDSP) Application for Registration in April</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the NPRR1223 as amended and recommended by PRS in the 05/09 PRS Report based on the 3/21 Impact Analysis without discussion</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=2d0edc58-6173-462e-8794-6dfe187dfb8a">5.6</a> NPRR1224, ECRS Manual Deployment Triggers – URGENT <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sponsored by ERCOT creating a manual trigger to release ECRS (500 MW) from SCED and requires an energy offer curve for capacity assigned to ECRS at no less than $1000 per Megawatt-hour.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">April 5th: PRS granted urgent status to NPRR1224; two opposing votes. Voted to table; three abstentions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">May 9th: PRS recommended approval of 1224 as amended by April 30th TCPA comment as revised by ERCOT; five opposing votes, six abstentions. Discussion:</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ned Bonskowski (Luminant) outlined joint comments by TCPA and others</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ECRS was intended to go live with real-time co-optimization (RTC) yet went live ahead of RTC</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT proposed releasing 500 megawatts of ECRS based on price-quantity pairs on the power balance penalty curve</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognizing concerns that ECRS removes reserves from the market given last year’s extreme heat and resulting scarcity</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aiming for compromise, the joint commentors evaluated the intersection of releasing 500 MW of ECRS with ancillary service demand curves at different times resulting in prices at or above $1,000 in most cases - in line with the PRS report’s $1,000 recommendation (2 out of 6 cases were below) and demonstrating its appropriate value and consistency with the market with RTC in 2026</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comparison of the PRS report recommending a trigger at 40 MW approximates the $1,000 floor, while the IMM recommendation of 5 MW would be at $250</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The question is whether the intent is to be a price reversal when ERCOT releases IRR or to mitigate recent price increases, seeking to replicate the price of RTC</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to accept the PRS Report was seconded by Blake Holt (LCRA)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM's position, endorsed by Richard Ross (AEP) with motion to amend the PRS report to the IMM’s version and seconded by Eric Schubert (Lyondell)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT’s IMM Jeff McDonald with Potomac Economics explains its recommendation for a 5 MW trigger, emphasizing any deployment trigger is a move in the right direction</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM calculated the reliability value of ECRS procurement at $16/MW and marginal reliability value of $0/MW leading to concerns about over-procurement of ECRS and its artificial impact on market prices</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Believes a material portion of ECRS procurement MW could be made available to the economic dispatch to eliminate artificial price escalation</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">While agreeing with using “under gen” to define the trigger, IMM justifies the administrative penalty price of the price formation based on the assumption of an artificial shortage condition is creating an artificial price</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Views the $1,000 price floor as protecting a portion of the $12 billion overage cost calculated for 2023</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recommended alternatives including: 1) Price-based trigger to signal a deployment preceding a shortage condition 2) Trigger based upon headroom available in SCED</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recommended against an offer price floor for released capacity suggesting the current mechanism such as the ORDC curve already injects administrative pricing and the shortage is artificial</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Resmi Surendran (Shell) noted that the IMM is seeking the most efficient market whereas the regulators (PUCT) have decided upon conservative operation driving out the value of ORDC and highlights the slides at the end of the TPAC comments which show the reliability value of approved ASDC. The TPAC proposal values the reserves at a level based on the approved ASDC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's Perspective: Three parallel efforts: 1) PUC Ancillary Service Study, 2) 2025 Ancillary Service methodology, 3) This NPPR1224 and a follow-up NPPR to revisit ECRS</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledged a fundamental different view on the value of ECRS from the IMM</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT sees the value of holding back 10 min reserves for a reliability event and suggests differences may be an issue of quantity</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Support for either the PRS version or IMM comments (no floor price) yet notes that a $1,000 is reasonably low given ASDC values over a range of times at which 500 MW of ECRS is released as referenced in TCPA comments and notes that the floor can be addressed in parallel efforts</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew Reimers (IMM/Potomac Economics) notes the inherent limitations of the current SCED versus a RTC SCED and suggests that there is no way to compare the two scenarios. If of 500 MW was released, only a portion would be dispatched. Assuming 40 MW is deployed, 460 MW are available for reserve, which would be given back to ECRS in an RTC situation</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt (LCRA) suggested that the discussion is missing the context of how these reforms would have impacted prices last summer. There is a trade-off for ERCOT to substitute reserves for energy - LCRA believes the price will be at least $1,000, suggesting a proper floor price</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Schubert (Lyondell) supports the IMM amendments assuming every single resource if able will be available to the grid</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ned Bonskowski (Luminant) opposes the IMM amendment arguing that the PRS report is most closely linked to the ancillary service demand curves; he encourages regard for ERCOT’s operational preferences referencing the nightmares of RUCs</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton (Engie) suggests the price floor addresses price reversal issues in case generators adjust offer curves to be deployed</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">John Russ Hubbard (TIEC) endorses the IMM amendment without a floor price, arguing that valuing the reserves will require additional study and ERCOT is working on a subsequent NPRR that can address a floor price</li> </ul> Final Voting: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to amend the PRS report with the 05/17 comments (failed)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to amend the RPS report as revised by TAC with a $500 floor (failed with 2 abstentions).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the RPS report as sent (failed 58% with 4 abstentions)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion regarding limiting ERCOT release was rejected during discussion</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to amend the PRS report as revised by TAC with $750 floor (passed 67% with consumers and retailers declining)</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=2b993c74-292f-4edc-8203-31d7d430db8e">5.7</a> NPRR1228, Continued One-Winter Procurements for Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS – URGENT Sponsored by ERCOT <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1228 decreases the number of firm fuel obligation periods awarded in a procurement from two to one</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Unanimous grant of urgent status</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approved on the combo ballot as recommended by PRS as submitted with the May 2nd impact analysis</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=700a2bbb-50da-46a5-bb37-d98b5fa857a5">5.8</a> NPRR1230, Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED – URGENT <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about the swiftness (2 days given to PRS for review) given significant impact on pricing were expressed by multiple participants including David Key (CPS), Alicia Loving (Austin Energy), and Brian Sams (Calpine) </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"> Ned Bonskowksi (Vistra) supports the current proposal using SCED to avoid emergency conditions</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT’s Freddy Garcia cautions that if shadow price caps are not implemented prior to summer, the existing process using HDL overrides will be used. Garcia believes HDL overrides will result in an uplift whereas shadow price caps are easier to hedge.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Many participants are not hedged.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brian Sams (Calpine) suggests other solutions beyond HDL override exist such as lowering the limit on the existing generic transmission constraints (GTCs)</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton (Engie) commented that derating the system is not encouraging efficient use of existing transmission</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In response to a question via chat, ERCOT clarified the shadow price cap would only be applied to IROLs as needed and suggested that the anticipated shadow price cap would be $19,721 for the South Texas exports with others using the current price cap constraints; the shadow price cap will be reviewed annually and will not change without a 30 day notice</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">David Kee (CPS) recommended that future changes to be discussed in a subcommittee (WMS or other) to give participants a heads up</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Seth Cochran (Vitol) calculated that the lowest percent shift factor at the price cap would suggest a $50,000 shadow price cap and requested clarification if the shadow price cap overrides the irresolvable threshold</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT’s Garcia clarified that the frequency bias would prevent a 1% shift factor limiting the corresponding generation to 900 MW</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Resmi Surendran (Shell) suggested ERCOT add a shift factor cutoff to ensure prices remain manageable</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT’s Dave Maggio highlighted the provision to lower the price cap based on the number of times triggered or a net margin calculation to contain cost</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The schedule is tight in order to implement for the majority of summer: the proposal needs to be passed by the next TAC meeting on May 31 or hold a Special TAC Meeting on Friday June 7. If approved by the ERCOT board (June 18), it would go to PUCT in July with an August 1 effective date limiting the ability to give 30-days notice. Resmi Surendran (Shell) cautioned that the PUC may override the 30-day notice to implement in time for summer and David Kee (CPS) and Ned Bonskowksi (Vistra) echoed the potential.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion by David Kee (CPS) to table NPRR1230 was carried with one abstention (Luminant).</li> </ul> 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three items still tabled at TAC: OBDR046, OBDR051, and PGRR105.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=68036c01-5b1e-40f9-b513-774f4d76b8b1">6.3</a> - PGRR105, Deliverability Criteria for DC Tie Imports – Request for Withdrawal <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Added to combo ballot</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=47e83826-9128-4ee2-b8a3-68422660b46f">7</a> - RMS Report - John Schatz <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Texas SET 5.0 implementation in November, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Flight 0924 maximum capabilities for Texas at 5.0 testing required for every LSE</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Application deadline: July 3rd, sign up deadline: July 31st</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Planning market information session for registering preferred requirements</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/06/TXSET5%20May%2022.png" width="505" height="364" />   <a href="/sharing/?token=5fe77707-8965-4c82-b9af-5530efe4f9fb">8</a> - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on RRs associated with NPRR1198 and difficulty in voting in straw poll</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PRS formally referred NPPR1221 to TAC, further referred to OWG </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR263 at PDCWG</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PGRR106 Recommended approval as amended by the 12/12/23 ERCOT comments</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=14eb4a88-b5f3-419f-9d6c-e030551e3dcc">8.1</a> - PGRR113, Related to NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve PGRR113 as recommended by 05/02 ROS report carries with with 4 abstentions (see stand alone ballot on 1198)</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=89054aec-d6f4-4a0d-a37a-66d560e1cd7f">8.2</a> - NOGRR258, Related to NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve NOGRR258 as recommended by ROS in the 05/02 ROS report (see stand alone ballot on 1198)</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4aa43895-37a2-4f0a-8a7a-d49aba14d7df">9</a> - WMS Report - Eric Blakey <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT items updates included a settlement stability report and an annual Unregistered DG Report</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is evaluating system impacts related to EPA regulations and a recent EPA ruling</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 endorsed with 03/26/24 Reliant comments and sent to PRS </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1216 endorsed with 04/17/24 ERCOT comments</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">VCMR039 Recommended for approval as submitted</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next meeting scheduled for June 5, 2024</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=fff0396d-87d1-4f02-a152-9c96b4d3daa5">10</a> - Large Flexible Load Task Force - LFLTF - Report - Bill Blevins <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The next steps include getting the rules moving forward.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=5722716b-8634-4ab7-887f-2345e23e4190">11</a> - RTC+B Task Force Report - Vote - Matt Mereness <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Timeline for market trials aiming for May 2025</li> </ul> 11.1 - Endorsement of Mitigated Offer Caps for Hydro for RTC <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Endorsement of the mitigate offer caps for Hydro for RTC added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=e118cd0a-f071-4f8b-8d8b-cbe29d8e3849">12</a> - Credit Finance Sub Group - CFSG - Report - Brenden Sager <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">CFSG voted to endorse NPRR1215 as amended by the 04/12/24 ERCOT comments</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The group is analyzing various scenarios for EAL changes to address over-collateralization and potential credit risk.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">E3 presented their PCM proposal, which differs significantly from the current collateral calculation methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the potential conflicts between the HB 1500 cost caps and the proposed PCM methodology.</li> </ul> 13 - ERCOT Reports <a href="/sharing/?token=685b52ca-a4a1-403e-8015-19fac345843c">13.1</a> - Proposed revisions to Board Policies and Procedures - Kim Rainwater/Jon Levine <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed revisions to Board Policies and Procedures discussion focused on updates and criteria for the board's process. Feedback was gathered on red lines related to policies for review and revisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC proposed that feedback be applied to reliability risk items. The discussion included considerations for reporting criteria and generating an adequate record. Additionally, there was a focus on maximizing capabilities and the submission of comments from various entities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting also addressed the issue of efficiently aggregating comments from multiple parties. The discussion delved into the distinction between corporate, associate, and commercial consumer members, as well as the potential penalties for misrepresenting information.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=0d1c78ad-16d6-4194-9717-e97a6de38dd3">13.2</a> - Oncor West Texas 345-kV Infrastructure Rebuild Project - Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Oncor West Texas 345-kV Infrastructure Rebuild Project has a total estimated cost of $1.12 billion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The project was aimed at addressing thermal overload issues and load growth in several counties in West Texas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposed project was analyzed for its impact on congestion and sensitivity, and it was concluded that it does not introduce new congestion or affect existing congestion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The recommendation is to endorse the West Texas infrastructure project to address reliability needs and the growth in oil and natural gas load in the West and forest area, with an expected in-service date of summer 2028.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Added to combo ballot</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=952db35a-f5f7-4529-b4ea-8ed3e5ecb815">13.3</a> - 2023 Maximum Daily Resource Planned Outage Capacity - MDRPOC - Performance and Methodology Review - Luke Butler <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A request was received to: When reviewing MDRPOC effectiveness, include sensitivities to load growth and generation retirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments were made on the methodology, including consideration of battery contribution, new generation beyond planning guide 6.9, and the current contract period for a firm fuel supply service.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about ERCOT's review of forced outages in the process and concerns about the minimum load of 89 gigawatts by 2030.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The plan is to present a draft of proposed changes to the methodology and review the recommendations with TAC in late summer or early fall.</li> </ul> 14 - Other Business <a href="/sharing/?token=bdf77b3c-31c0-4bdb-8bc0-ad39a10f476f">14.1</a> - 2025 Block Calendar - Ann Boren <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">2025 Block Calendar: Ann Boren presented the proposed 2025 Block Calendar, reflecting the board's reduced meeting schedule.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">After discussion, TAC decided to maintain 11 TAC meetings with placeholders for June 18th and September 17th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Annual Membership Meeting: John Levine discussed the selection process for TAC member speakers at the annual meeting. TAC will revisit the process at the July TAC meeting.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=a6159575-5985-4c20-8ac8-804c7781677a">15</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith <img src="/storage/docs/2024/06/May22ComboVotingItems.png" width="866" height="139" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/06/May22Combo.png" width="724" height="724" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The motion carries unanimously.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4be7395b-a566-4072-a81f-7b6dcb85a778">16</a>. NOGRR245, Inverter-Based Resource (IBR) Ride-Through Requirements (Vote) <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This item was tabled after extensive discussion and debate.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan Quint (Elevate Energy Consulting) presented comments on behalf of the joint commenters, focusing on the need for new requirements for new resources, maximizing equipment capability, and the commercial reasonability approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT (Steven Solis) presented proposed red lines to the TAC-approved version, addressing concerns about the exemption process, reliability risk assessment, and performance failure mitigation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Key discussion points included:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The definition and implementation of "maximizing equipment capability."</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The appropriate SGIA date for distinguishing between legacy and new resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The criteria for granting exemptions, including cost thresholds and reliability risk assessment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The process for mitigating performance failures and updating models.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC agreed on the concept of maximizing equipment capability and requiring assessment and mitigation for ride-through failures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT will take back the feedback and work on language that reflects the agreed-upon concepts, including integrating IEEE 2800 requirements and addressing concerns about hardware changes and cost thresholds.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC will continue discussing NOGRR245 at the next meeting.</li> </ul>