Frame

Meeting Summary - 03/05/2025 WMS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
03/06/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-Summary.png" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=ef46b165-1651-4279-813f-9616cb45419b">▶️</a>0 - Validation for WMS Standing Representatives</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=dfbd7c53-5c2a-4e31-9fb5-c267506fef1f">▶️</a>1 - Antitrust Admonition</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=432342f2-dd98-45a1-86fb-5936f639d921">▶️</a>2 - Agenda Review</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=4d66d4de-2901-4e70-9bd8-a6363c5c0783">▶️</a>3 - Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Update</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC highlighted three high-profile NPRRs requiring PRS action by March 12</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1268: AS demand curve policy changes</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1269: Resolution on AS proxy floor, RUC AS demand curves, and scaling factors for ramp sharing</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1270: Administrative changes to load resources, removes group assignments, adds preprocessing checks for SCED, and eliminates automatic AS qualification for resources</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement to join the RTCBTF meeting at 2PM for discussions on the NPRRs</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=cdce80cc-76b5-4dee-be75-4ea426353858">▶️</a>4 - WMS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/04.-TAC-Strategic-Objectives-Approved-02272025.pdf">04.-TAC-Strategic-Objectives-Approved-02272025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Started condensing current WMS goals into a new format, current WMS goals count is 15.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus is on gathering and condensing common themes from these goals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aim to align these goals with strategic objectives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Belief that most detailed activities will fall under objectives number two and three.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Provided a status update and requested feedback from the group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The goal is to present findings by April.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=68db04c0-7d09-4212-baeb-fd6c3873ca3b">▶️</a>5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items - 9:45 a.m.</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=1ba3a2c9-6f0c-46cd-b4b9-414ac806ab87">▶️</a>5.1 - ADER discussion – Phase 3 governing document (Waive Notice - Possible Vote)</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/05.-ADER-Pilot-Program-Transition-and-Non-Consensus-Items-for-Phase-3-WMS-030525.pdf">05.-ADER-Pilot-Program-Transition-and-Non-Consensus-Items-for-Phase-3-WMS-030525.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio presented the current status of the ADER pilot previously at TAC, mentioning a shift from PUC to ERCOT stakeholder process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The ADR pilot has evolved in phases: initial phase for non-spin awards, phase two for testing and validation, and phase three focusing on expanding ADER participation models.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Currently, three ADERs fully participate in the market; eight more are in the registration process, with about 25 MW capacity for energy, 11 MW for non-spinning, and 8.8 MW for ECRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Phase three policy focuses on expanding participation models, considering NCLR as an option besides CLR for resources without smooth ramp capability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion arose on third party aggregators participating with residential customers, causing contention.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Compromise proposed: aggregators for premises 100 kW or greater; smaller resources must use retail electric providers or municipal/co-op.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Pilot limits can be increased by ERCOT without governing updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Finalization of these discussions is needed to reflect in the phase three governing document due for board approval by June.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further consensus on third-party aggregations suggested, with possible discussion at DSWG ahead of the April 2nd meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff emphasized eliminating unnecessary barriers to residential consumer participation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Vistra raised concerns on third-party aggregations and the impact on LSE's financial hedging due to third-party actions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on framework for accountability and penalties in third-party aggregations and their implications for LSE and retailers.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b3bd2785-6316-421a-898b-c37efb3d044b">▶️</a>5.2 - New Hill County and nearby 345-kV (SAMSW) Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT implemented a new Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC) in Hill County.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new GTC is not related to SSR; it addresses a weak grid issue identified in stability assessments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">System strength is weak in the local area with a high concentration of renewable resources, causing dynamic stability issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The GTC is required only under certain conditions, specifically when there are double circuit priorities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The instability issues are related to oscillatory response, undamped oscillations, or slow motion recovery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The GTC methodology is posted on the ERCOT MIS secure website for reference.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was confusion due to market notices referencing SSR; clarified that the GTC addresses a different instability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about the nature of stability issues and clarity was provided that it's a dynamic stability concern under multiple contingencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new GTC was implemented on the day of the meeting.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=ba9c0403-4da0-46bd-80f1-8cd26e9b2d68">▶️</a>6 - WMS Revision Requests (Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=33c6f999-870d-447c-89b7-f23d0c894094">▶️</a>6.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 2/5/25 WMS Report and 2/20/25 Impact Analysis for SMOGRR028 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Language for SMOGRR028 was approved last month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Analysis shows no impact, no project, no cost.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No opposition was raised during discussion.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=31706833-50af-412e-a423-b8a25670a8ae">▶️</a>7 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee (PRS) Referrals (Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=db36bc93-2692-4491-910d-48186c4a6084">▶️</a>7.1 - NPRR1271, Revision to User Security Administrator and Digital Certificates Opt-out Eligibility</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse NPRR1271 as submitted added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1271 was discussed, with initial support at PRS but concerns raised by John Varnell of Tenaska.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katherine Gross provided a background on NPRR1271, aimed at allowing CFE to opt out of digital certificates obligation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Current protocols allow some entities, like municipalities and electric co-ops, to opt out if they don't use digital certificates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns addressed the administrative burden and compliance risk of digital certificate attestation for entities not using them.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">If CFE's QSC fills out the attestation, it could solve short-term compliance but control issues may arise.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katherine specified that ERCOT doesn't intend a broader opt-out, only for entities like CFE who don't use digital certificates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">John Varnell had unresolved technical difficulties and couldn't present his concerns during the meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Questions arose about CFE's past compliance with DCAA and current use of digital certificates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katherine clarified that CFE does not use its digital certificates actively, aligning with the NPRR rationale.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=fee5a553-f9b1-4683-8679-427cd5d05920">▶️</a>8 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS (Possible Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=fdfdba62-49a7-44c4-8ae5-43bfa0d180f1">▶️</a>8.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Awaiting comments from EDF.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Alex Miller (EDF) mentioned they are working on comments and they will be ready soon.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=bc89c974-b679-4db6-ab51-0ddeaf4c72f9">▶️</a>9 - Revision Requests Tabled at WMS (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A discussion about voting on already tabled revision requests, specifically NPRR1264, which had been previously voted on.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was clarified that three related items could be moved along if desired, with small updates needing no revisions to language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric clarified that each item would require a separate ballot rather than a combined one.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was no opposition to the idea of using a separate ballot, and a motion was made to approve it.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">One abstention was noted, but the motion carried overall.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-9BallotDetails.png" width="801" height="89" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-9Ballot.png" width="798" height="843" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=800e432b-2888-466c-b590-f76b0c3f7ad0">▶️</a>10 - Wholesale Market Working Group (WMWG)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/10.-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-march-03-meeting.pdf">10.-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-march-03-meeting.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Constellation raised issues related to the lack of RUC opt-outs due to NPRR1092.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King mentioned that issues were more a feature of NPRR1092.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Constellation wishes to continue discussing policy effectiveness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion to continue in the next meeting on March 31.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMWG had discussions on CARD and CRRBA allocation methodology</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT had filed necessary data from previous discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">They announced shelving the proposal for a change in methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No questions were raised on the analysis during the meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Other market participants agreed with the decision to not pursue changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT will address any questions on the data at the next WMS meeting. </li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=83d281a6-5309-4721-8aac-931f56eabf69">▶️</a>10.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment (WMWG) (Possible Vote)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC and ERCOT collaborated on addressing various comments and concerns on NPRR1229 discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">STEC presented their latest comments which suggest a strategy to limit the payments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were no questions or concerns raised regarding this approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMS has no specific recommendation on NPRR1229's substance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229 is ready for discussion at the WMS.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-NPRR1229Ballot.png" width="800" height="847" /> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d9690422-5e23-4888-93a2-18aadec376e5">▶️</a>Further Discussion on NPRR1229</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229 has undergone significant revisions to include more criteria and a reporting threshold similar to NPRR1190.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR aims to provide cost recovery payments if a unit trips following ERCOT manual action, with three payment categories: financial losses, breakage cost capped at $500,000 per event, and a start-up payment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about allowing financial recovery in cases where a resource trips during manual actions initiated by ERCOT for reliability, despite such occurrences being rare.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt indicated that the operation scenario was rare and it was reasonable for ERCOT to require such operations for reliability, with cost recovery provided if necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff expressed concerns over the potential for out-of-market payments to generators and preferred exploring alternatives like the SCED system.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Attendees discussed potentially lowering the reporting threshold from $3.5 million to $1.5 million for further review, considering the novelty of the mechanism.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT’s stance is neutral currently, with no firm position on NPRR1229, recognizing the collaborative input in creating feasible language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The importance of having mechanisms for cost recovery when manual actions result in harm was highlighted with emphasis on transparency and agreement on financial recovery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No strong objections were raised to a lower threshold; ERCOT indicated a neutrality that wouldn’t react to this change. The motion to amend NPRR1229 with a lower threshold passed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Outcome: The motion carried with 80% in favor and 20% opposed.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d5e0dc26-bba4-40e7-a254-6887d89db2e5">▶️</a>10.2 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (WMWG) (Possible Vote)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse NPRR1264 as amended by the 2/11/25 Constellation comments passed with one abstention.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff and Austin Rosel discussed implementation options for NPRR1264, whether by ERCOT or a third party vendor, asking for feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The sponsors requested a WMS vote to move to the impact analysis phase.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andy Nguyen and Eric Goff emphasized the importance of considering impact analysis due to its potential to uncover implementation choices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments from Constellation and others were reviewed, focusing on API functionality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting had discussions on desktop edits and transparency, with various stakeholders voicing support and concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the neutrality of the original NPRR language regarding technology types in the EAC attribute table.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A motion to approve the NPRR1264 for moving to the impact analysis phase, considering comments by Constellation, was passed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A clear intention to maintain flexibility in how market participants decide to adopt hourly tracking for the energy attribute certificate program.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-NPRR1264BallotResults.png" width="799" height="843" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8025ecf6-3082-4f57-b899-4a2c65e8d33e">▶️</a>11 - Congestion Management Working Group (CMWG)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/11.-CMWG-Feb_2025_Report_WMS.pdf">11.-CMWG-Feb_2025_Report_WMS.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New meeting dates were proposed to align with CRR auction days and future WMS meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder services were requested to post new dates on the CMWG meeting website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT staff presented historical and current metrics on long-term auction solution times.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Auction sequences are taking longer than the target average of 80 hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Improvements to auction solution times will be addressed through a new NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updates were provided on NPRR1261, aiming for March 15 implementation pending PUC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current transaction limit remains at 3,000 until PUC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updates on ongoing NPRRs regarding removal of multiple months bidding functionality and option pricing report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is collaborating with a software vendor for impact analysis for their NPRR proposal, slated for March 2025.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6a23feea-729d-442e-8cd7-996fe2a689a0">▶️</a>11.1 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk (CMWG) (Possible Vote)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion To endorse NPRR1214 as amended by the 1/28/25 ERCOT comments added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">LCRA representatives reviewed comments and concluded no further discussion or investigation is needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus reached to move NPRR along with comments to PRS for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">LCRA appreciates the additional time for review and is satisfied with the current status.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus to put it on the combo for approval, with no objections or abstentions voiced.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=024187c2-4136-455f-aa49-c9a982c68a40">▶️</a>12 - Meter Working Group (MWG)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kyle Stuckly acknowledged as representative for the Meter Working Group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of the NPRR1263 will occur at WMG on March 19.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmed a report will be presented at the next meeting.</li> </ul> <h3>12.1 - Not Discussed</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5cff58db-48d5-4e94-b9a9-53e58f2003da">▶️</a>13 - Supply Analysis Working Group (SAWG)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/13.-240305-SAWG-presentation-to-WMS-v1.pdf">13.-240305-SAWG-presentation-to-WMS-v1.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The main focus of the SAWG meeting was the CDR, with no DRRS discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Pete Warnken discussed the enhanced CDR, highlighting the background tab for new CR details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR945 passage made PUNS data details public, to be included in the CDR unit details tab.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about ELCC values, focusing on risk period segmentation and peak net load hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments indicated lower reliability benefit from solar during afternoon peak hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Interest was expressed in including thermal resource ELCCs in future CDRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Werner Roth mentioned the 'small fish rule,' emphasizing historical performance during peak hours with no process changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The next SAWG meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 28.</li> </ul> <h3>13.1 - Not Discussed</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=4c746c6b-ed14-4cb8-b829-7df0002862b7">▶️</a>14 - Combo Ballot (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Combo ballot passes unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-ComboDetails.png" width="817" height="83" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-05-2025-WMS-ComboResults.png" width="807" height="856" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=0d33a470-3f55-42e6-86a3-2f977a8ea3c6">▶️</a>15 - Other Business</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">LCRA requested an educational session to understand the situation on February 19 that led to record setting LMPs in Central Texas. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">They want to understand the constraint activation procedure, focusing on constraints that were compounding with a post contingency overload greater than 98%. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">They seek clarity on 'series elements' in the current operating procedure.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Gordon Drake from ERCOT agreed to address this at the CMWG and prepare information for a future meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shams Siddiqi requested an update regarding behind the meter resources providing ancillary services, which was an issue discussed at the last WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Gordon Drake from ERCOT mentioned there is no update at the current meeting but will follow up with internal resources for information to be presented in a future meeting.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=3f4b5e2a-c5a0-4c6a-bef2-09ce5a5dee32">▶️</a>15.1 - Review Open Action Items</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted recent additions to the list of open action items from Constellation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two new items discussed: exploring the RUC opt-out process and resource cost-related issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The RUC opt-out process is currently being covered by the WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Another item dated February 27 has not been covered or assigned yet; discussions needed on timeline and next steps.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andy Nguyen provided updates on the timeline provision for opting out and potential proposals for WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Anticipating refiling of NPRR1177 sunset date; discussions with ERCOT and IMM planned before proceeding.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commitment to provide updates during the 2025 period for unresolved issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential need for coordination to set up future meetings to address unresolved items.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=13ed5fec-b13c-4c75-9027-b0a4de986a47">▶️</a>15.2 - No Report</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No reports were provided from the following working groups: DSWG, MSWG, or RCWG.</li> </ul> <h3>15.2.1-15.2.3 </h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3244cd5d-90b3-4d4b-8337-09975461e0f8">▶️</a>16 - Adjourn</h3>