Frame

Meeting Summary - 12/18/2024 - PLWG Meeting - Webex Only

Grid Monitor AI
12/19/2024

<img src="/storage/docs/2024/12/Dec18.2024.PLWG.HERO.png" /> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=64b7481f-c77f-4880-82ce-153d47b697c2">▶️</a> 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Chair</h2> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=b57de5d5-9912-4c5a-a08c-227d3c142839">▶️</a> 2 - Agenda Review - Chair</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several additions to the agenda after posting were mentioned.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PGRR115 discussion will include Floyd from ERCOT Steel Mills.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments from Southern Power were submitted for PGRR120 and will be included.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=976ebb1f-454a-40b7-8e21-e9a38a77f12f">▶️</a> 3 - Review of PLWG Meeting Minutes - Nov 12 - Chair</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments received were incorporated into final notes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Final notes posted on the PLWG event page for November.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No additional comments were made; minutes considered final.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=d1e0718b-3328-491e-bc6b-4f4f2f5b9210">▶️</a> 4 - General updates - Chair - Dylan Preas</h2> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=b16ebfc8-70ad-4917-b837-5b5b2bd4bc9e">▶️</a> 4.1 - At the Dec 5 ROS meeting, the following occurred</h3> <h4><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=5890244c-bee6-4bf3-a65a-f661dd7e4aa6">▶️</a> 4.1.1 - ROS referred PGRR119 back to PLWG</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS sent back PGRR115 to PLWG for additional consideration.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=b56a8277-aaf3-40b5-9869-911c8c1318ab">▶️</a> 4.1.2 - ROS referred PGRR122 to PLWG</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS referred PGRR122 to PLWG.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=c02692c2-da87-492b-afcd-a2bf5fcf84b2">▶️</a> 4.2 - Leadership 25 nominations</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Harsh Naik of Oncor nominates Mina Turner from AEP for PLWG chair.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mina Turner accepts the nomination.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Alex Miller nominates Kristin Cook from Southern Power for Vice Chair.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kristen Cook accepts the nomination.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmed nominations for 2025 PLWG leadership to be submitted to ROS.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=bdb2b075-468b-457f-bd87-f2871925ce52">▶️</a> 4.3 - 2025 PLWG - calendar update</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No dates set for 2025 PLWG meetings yet.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mina is leading the effort to establish the 2025 PLWG calendar.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of having enough time for PLWG discussions noted, especially against a robust RPG agenda.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tentative plan includes identifying two or three in-person meetings and the rest being virtual following RPG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RPG meetings will be on Tuesdays for 2025 as per their set schedule.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential issues with back-to-back meetings and travel considerations were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about scheduling conflicts with other ERCOT meetings like TAC and RTC noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgement of stakeholders' need to balance attendance across various meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mina agreed to review the schedule for conflicts and finalize the calendar with Susie's input.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=af3ee7aa-ed1f-4429-8788-2466caf59cc0">▶️</a> 5 - PGRR115 related to NPRR1234 – Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater PLWG</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Floyd expressed concerns with existing language in Section 9.2.5, stating it mixes interconnection equipment specifications with operational instructions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Floyd acknowledged the remote control provision wasn't the main issue but focused on language that might imply ERCOT's instructions override safety exceptions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A discussion ensued on finding compromise language that maintains safety protocols without unnecessarily complicating planning guides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The group deliberated on finding a base document to build from, considering comments from Oncor, joint TSP comments, centerpoint comments, and ERCOT comments.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=c9f745db-9e43-4ecb-ac99-3636553e4af9">▶️</a> 5.1 - 115PGRR-13 CenterPoint Comments 121224 - CEHE</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Raja Kakarla from CenterPoint Energy presented comments on PGRR115 submitted by CenterPoint Energy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarified language related to roles and responsibilities in PGRR115.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Replaced the term 'material change' with 'qualified change' to align with FAC-002 terminology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Asked ERCOT for diagrams illustrating 'transmission service bus' terminology and suggested 'load service point' as an alternative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Noted clarifications needed on processes and roles.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Submitted language changes related to submission of project data into RIO by the ILLE.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agee Springer with ERCOT explained intention behind language stipulations regarding interconnection requests and reliability study elements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Blevins asked about stability study triggers and mechanisms for TSP notification of customer load exceedances.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Expressed comfort with Oncor comments and sought to understand CenterPoint comments.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monica with Vistra asked about format for submissions to ERCOT and the use of terms like 'qualified change.'</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Sought clarification on 'load service point' and its difference from 'transmission service bus.'</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Blevins with ERCOT clarified that ERCOT requires telemetry for large loads to ensure monitoring capabilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed telemetry requirements related to large load monitoring.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about the role of TSPs and ERCOT in monitoring loads.</li> </ul> <h3>Outcome:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT and various stakeholders discussed clarifying language in PGRR115, especially regarding roles, responsibilities, and definitions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">CenterPoint's suggestion of changing 'material change' to 'qualified change' to align with existing terminology was put forth.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT to provide further comments on CenterPoint's suggestions and review multiple comments submitted under PGRR115.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=23b94587-68b1-4b96-addb-28d8e2d827a7">▶️</a> 5.2 - 115PGRR-14 Joint TSPs Comments 121224 - Joint TSPs</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Joint TSP comments build on ERCOT comments from November 11 but stand alone with a narrow focus.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about the stability studies for loads above 100 megawatts; consensus that full stability studies for smaller loads may be excessive.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal for a threshold system: 75 to 300 MW for steady state study, 300 to 1000 MW for screening studies, above 1000 MW for full stability study.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment that specific sensitive areas may still require full studies regardless of thresholds.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The term 'stability screening study' discussed; possible inclusion in the DWG procedure manual instead of defining it in the planning guide.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's internal discussions required; planning guide may not be the best place for threshold details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about potential compliance issues if studies are skipped; need for technical rationales documented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on how proposal might work in regions with existing stability limits or GTCs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion around screening studies and details to be added in DWG procedure manual.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Differing opinions on whether thresholds should be included in the planning guide.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal for a detailed rationale within reports to justify when studies are not required.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussion and consensus needed within DWG and ERCOT teams regarding the proposal.</li> </ul> <h3>Actions:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Continue discussions in DWG meetings and within ERCOT regarding proposal and guide implementations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possibly redefine stability criteria and thresholds, focusing on technical rationale.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT to reassess GTC limits with new load studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further exploration of compliance implications of the proposed thresholds.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=ef5b3c26-7646-4c7c-8cf9-d2213587d5ce">▶️</a> 5.3 - 115PGRR-15 Oncor Comments 121224 - Oncor</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Martha Henson from Oncor presented comments focusing primarily on two separate 1 gigawatt load criteria in PGRR115 and PGRR122.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Oncor supports earlier joint comments regarding load interconnections subject to stability study requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on transmission projects being removed from the steady state analysis if they're not in service before a load energizes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confusion exists over the definition of transmission service bus, with market participants noting uncertainty.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Oncor to file comments on PGRR122, which covers broader contingencies and proposes a different scope than PGRR115.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT expressed some support, working with Oncor on simplifying language to avoid defining the TSP bus.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised over the application of new criteria across all planning studies, suggesting it be limited to new large load interconnections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential confusion over the new load definition and implications discussed with calls for clarification on criteria applicability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Understanding sought on criteria applicability to loads connected via short lines or shared towers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Follow-up needed on specific requirements; next steps include ERCOT filing reply comments by January PLWG.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=6360a5be-1305-4935-b0ee-c96e8bec9043">▶️</a> 6 - PGRR119 – PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Joint commenters provided input, leading to consensus at the PLWG level and being sent to ROS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">After review by ROS, joint commenters' feedback led to the item being returned to PLWG for further discussion.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=0ead2e34-a012-4c9f-9b84-0fcd26306dc2">▶️</a> 6.1 - 119PGRR-06 Joint Commenters Comments 120224</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">EDF, Pattern, and others submitted comments intending to clarify and improve upon prior comments, notably addressing OPUC's concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The changes aim to more clearly document operational practices and modeling changes in the planning guide, reflecting ongoing procedures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Revisions were made to clarify the operational reliability margins and ensure consistent economic evaluation practices, drawing language from NPRR1070.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on using current operational reliability margins for GTL, unless future changes are specifically expected and quantifiable, was stressed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about differentiating stability limits from GTL in planning studies to avoid confusion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT described the challenge of predicting future operational margins or limits due to unknown variables and changing operational practices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions were made to refine language to clearly permit using best available information while allowing flexibility for future expectations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus reached to take discussions offline and refine language to be reviewed in January.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=713f95fc-85a1-491e-b88d-c6f7446e5c4b">▶️</a> 7 - PGRR120 – SSO Prevention for Generation Interconnection - ERCOT</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kristin Cook from Southern Power presented comments on PGRR120, suggesting potential improvements in the language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The intent of the first change is to provide more certainty to generator owners currently far along in the interconnection process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The second change would allow existing generators to modify if SSO has already been fully mitigated, alleviating potential disincentives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Freddy Garcia from ERCOT Operations acknowledged the comments and requested time to thoroughly review them, proposing to revisit the matter in January.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion also focused on reliability concerns and difficulties in mitigating these complex problems, with ERCOT emphasizing reliability as a priority.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is open to further discussions with Lone Star and other stakeholders regarding concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The PLWG agreed to table the item for further discussion.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=d4d83c50-79ef-4c45-b0a0-e141a88dcbce">▶️</a> 8 - PGRR122 – Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load - ERCOT</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/12/plwg_12182024_pgrr122.pdf">plwg_12182024_pgrr122.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jeff Billo from ERCOT Operations gave a presentation on agenda item PGRR122, which was also presented at DWG the previous week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion centered on the Southern Cross (now Southern Spirit) DC tie project and related reliability performance criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Public Utility Commission (PUC) issued directives, including Directive 9, which required ERCOT to study ancillary services for the project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">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.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In response to these findings, ERCOT filed and got approval for NPRR1034 to limit DC tie exports to ensure frequency stability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation of NPRR1034 is on hold until the project construction is complete.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=a1c2ee59-f8b8-46e6-9c5b-a1d903b9b37a">▶️</a> 8.1 - 122PGRR-01 ERCOT 111124</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Large load interconnection requests exceeding 1,000 megawatts are becoming more frequent; aggregations of smaller loads also exceed 1,000 megawatts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Southern Cross study showed a frequency stability limit regarding demand loss in contingency scenarios.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Large loads often lack good voltage ride-through capability, posing reliability issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PGRR122 proposes a maximum amount of load that can be lost under contingency to maintain frequency stability, initially set at 1,000 megawatts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing study aims to determine if the limit should be higher, expected completion in Spring 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from DWG highlights concerns that transmission system upgrades alone may not address the reliability risk.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions for alternative solutions are being considered based on DWG feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about P6 contingencies, which involve loss of two separate circuits, leading to potential combined load losses.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the need to include or clarify P6 contingency handling in the new regulations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of a new contingency introduced in PGRR115, impacting load interconnection exceeding 1,000 megawatts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns regarding the difference in reliability and ride-through capability between crypto and traditional data center loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions about defining large load interconnections, especially when multiple separate feeds are involved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of clarifying guidelines around electrically separate connections at the same site.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing efforts at DWG to address load model validation and connect ride-through capabilities to regulatory frameworks.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=97750233-90c9-452d-9fbf-3f2f4dcade6a">▶️</a> 9 - NERC Topics Roundtable (future topics) - PLWG</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tracking ongoing NERC revision process for CIP-014-4.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monitoring progress on TPL-008 as part of NERC revisions.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=491980f7-0ee9-40cd-b0c1-9346f71e7e91">▶️</a> 9.1 - CIP-014-4 - Physical Security</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The second ballot for CIP-014-4 did not pass.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The drafting team is working on addressing comments and are close to finalizing adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A new ballot is expected to be released in January or February next year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several tweaks have been made to the standard.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders should look out for updates on the CIP-014-4 ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=f0894de6-3cba-42b3-ba1c-73862b94bc8e">▶️</a> 9.2 - TPL-008 - Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements for Extreme Temperature Events</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reference to previous incidents related to extreme weather.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of NERC Project 2023-07 and its current status.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NERC board adoption on December 10th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Filing with FERC on December 17th.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=fb043a0d-da4a-45ea-98e3-a1abcdc571f0">▶️</a> 10 - Review Open Action Items - Chair</h2> <h3><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=56a46fee-200e-4d76-a9ef-a4a90b9ed8af">▶️</a> 10.1 - Align the use of the terms “load” and “Load” in the Planning Guide with the defined term in Protocol Section 2</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Protocol definition of 'load' shared: amount of energy in megawatt hours delivered at a specific point or points in a system.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion referenced PGRR107, where distinctions between capital 'L' and lowercase 'l' loads were made.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes were implemented based on this discussion which affected load terminology.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=8cfd65b1-55d8-47bc-bd92-d42a6b45dcf7">▶️</a> 10.1.2 - Section 2; no occurrences of “load” or “Load”</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the use of 'load' in the planning guide as defined in protocol section two.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed the first two sections of the planning guide with no occurrences of 'load'.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Noted 28 occurrences of 'load' in section 3, including in titles, thus fewer in actual content.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted instances of non-relevant uses of 'loads'.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=1789af17-3c71-4db3-bb98-5bcd0603c0b5">▶️</a> 10.1.3 - Section 3 - 28 occurrences of “load” or “Load”</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Objective was to distinguish when 'load' should be capitalized as it relates to defined terms, and make appropriate changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The recent workload had delayed progress on this task, but efforts are now underway to make updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to prepare a Planning Guide Revision Request (PGRR) to submit to ROS for modifications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about whether 'load forecast' should be capitalized, deciding it should generally not be, except in specific contexts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Determination that Section 3 will involve using lowercase 'l' for generic load references.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration to involve Ping Yan in reviewing Section 4 due to past changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognition of new leadership: Mina and Kristin, with the official changeover expected in February following the ROS vote.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps include drafting agendas for subsequent meetings and scheduling updates, with the next meeting potentially on January 28th.</li> </ul> <h2>11 - Other Business</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h2><a href="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/sharing/?token=034abacb-3cfb-48ad-9015-bef7eaed52e2">▶️</a> 12 - Adjourn - Chair</h2>