Frame

ERCOT Planning Working Group Meeting Notes

Grid Monitor - staff writer
09/16/2021

Agenda <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 459.7pt;" border="0" width="460" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 1. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Antitrust Admonition   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 2. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> ROS Update   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 3. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> NPRR 1070 - Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions – Update ·      No new comments since comments have been posted. The NPRR proposes to add new language to section 3.11.2 of the protocols. ·      It was stated that the new (7)(a) and doesn’t burden ERCOT with additional restrictive requirements and that (7)(b) reflects what ERCOT is already doing to reflect safety margins in analyses ·      How do GTC’s limit the ability of generation to serve load during emergency conditions needs more discussion. ·      Regarding the reserve margin language in (7)(d), ERCOT mentioned that it a number of analyses are ongoing and isn’t wasn’t ready to comment on what this specific paragraph should look like. They can provide updated feedback in the future. ERCOT was asked for their timeline on this, but couldn’t give one, specifically. ·      ERCOT expressed concern over the definition of the term Generic Transmission Constraint (GTC) because it is an operation tool, and these types of constraints are a subset of non-thermal constraints. The sponsor was trying to include both current and reasonable expected future constraints in the model. If it’s possible to get a that with more general language ERCOT thinks that could be worth thinking about. The sponsor may be able to generalize this and avoid the use of this term and will consider it. ·      ERCOT has asked for more time to review (7)(c-d), and the sponsor will work on other language changes.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 4. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Emergency Conditions List – Transmission Planning Studies and Extreme Winter Cases (#47, 93,94) </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 30pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Update on Coordination with SSWG and SAWG The Friday joint SAWG and PLWG meeting will discuss these items and supply adequacy during emergency situations.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 30pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Sub group report ·      Presentation given and posted. They present extreme weather cases (based on February 2021), Extreme Heat and Drought Summer, and Hurricanes/Tropical Storms/Tornadoes) ·      In these scenarios storage is shown at 0% because it is assumed to be already depleted after an hour or two in duration. ·      For the Hurricane/Tropical Storm/Tornado it was suggested that the group looks at specific post-storm conditions from historical events instead of using averages. ·      The studies discussed are going to require a good amount of ERCOT staff time and one commenter suggested that the group should think through the purpose of the studies and work to scope them to make sure they will be useful. ·      One stakeholder asked what the assumptions were for the DC Tie flows during these scenarios. The subgroup answered that this was not discussed, and this needs to be considered. ·      If SSWG decides that doing all of these cases every year isn’t appropriate, then it may be necessary to discuss the timing cycle for these. ·      The chair asked people to consider how PLWG can be helpful here and what things might be better addressed by other groups.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 5. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Emergency Conditions List - GTC management (#29, #51, #86) </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 30pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Update on PUCT Activity – ·  There was a lot of discussion in previous PUC open meetings about issues in the LGRV and how long it takes for build new transmission.  Two commissioners seem to be particularly focused on this. SB1281 was discussed at the last meeting as well as which test(s) transmission projects will have to meet in order to get built. Previously it sounded like this was going to receive PUC guidance next year, but the time line may move forward. One commissioner posted a memo asking for more information regarding projects and timing for transmission projects in south Texas and the LGRV. ·  One commenter stated that the PUC may be willing to let ERCOT proceed with general direction on this issue, instead of formal action. They encouraged the group to consider moving forward with GTC work instead of waiting until some future date.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 6. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> PGRR 095 – Establish Minimum Deliverability Criteria ·      ERCOT filed this PGRR at the end of August. The purpose is to establish a new reliability criteria based for dispatchable resources. It is not to change the way resources are dispatched in real-time situations. ERCOT has introduced criteria for minimum deliverability. They have specified the relevant contingency scenarios by reference. ·      ERCOT was asked how they plan to address co-located resources. Some of these are included in 2b), but not self-limiting resources. They have not looked at solar itself or solar that is AC connected, because they want to look at things that are fully ERCOT-dispatchable. This is a first cut of fully dispatchable from an ERCOT control perspective. ·      Some stakeholder raised a concern over the “dispatchable” term and the fact that dispatchable resources may not actually be available during an emergency, for example gas units that couldn’t run due to lack of fuel during WS Uri. ERCOT acknowledged that this is an additional issue, and that some resources with intermittent fuels should perhaps be considered in a future step. Batteries were also mentioned for consideration, and whether they should be viewed as providing their maximum output for a short duration or a slower rate of discharge. ·      This is expected be referred to PLWG at the next ROS meeting.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27"> 7. </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Other Business Combined meeting with SAWG on Friday.   </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Items being monitored for developments </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 30pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Emergency Conditions List Items Not Started. </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 60pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Item 49 Evaluate EEA Rules and assess for changes. </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 60pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Item 105 SODG Performance </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 60pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> KTC- 15-6 RMR and MRA Services analysis for Batteries and DG </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;"> <td style="width: 26.55pt; padding: 0.75pt 3.75pt 0in 0.75pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="27">   </td> <td style="width: 428.65pt; padding: 0.75pt 11.25pt 0in 60pt; height: 12pt;" valign="top" width="429"> Emergency Conditions List - DC Tie performances (#41, 106) </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>