Frame

ERCOT Planning Working Group Meeting Notes - 12/15

Grid Monitor - staff writer
12/16/2021

1)    Antitrust Admonition 2)    ROS Update – a)    PLWG leadership gave a brief update about revisions recommended for approval at ROS. b)    Miscellaneous Update – John Bernecker i)      ERCOT gave an update on some organizational and staffing changes within ERCOT. There is a new supervisory position that will focus on economic analysis and long-term planning, Jameson Hessler. Ping Yan will remain in her role for regional transmission planning. There are some other staffing transfers between planning and operations. ERCOT will update stakeholders in the new year about how these changes will interact with RPG and various working groups. c)     PGRR 097 – DC Tie Reactive Power Capability Requirements (Withdrawl) d)    PGRR 099 – Revise GIM Process to Ensure Compliance with Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act. (approved at ROS)   3)    ECL Updates a)    Item 49 – OWG has completed review and recommends closing citing NPRR 1094, 1105, and 1106. i)      These are not issues that the group thought needed to be addressed by PLWG. This will be considered closed. b)    Transmission Planning Studies and Extreme Winter Cases (#47, 93,94) i)      PLWG had a small working group that was focused on this task. What remains is related to developing some of the contingencies to address vulnerabilities in fuel supply, but these issues are outside of the PLWG’s and the stakeholder processes purview. ii)    The one aspect that might need discussion was the extreme winter cases that will be used in planning studies. There is nowhere in the planning guides that specifically addresses these extreme scenarios. The question was asked whether there was a need to address these. iii)   ERCOT thought that is wasn’t the right approach to only tie these changes to the transmission planning process – they stated that the approach needs to be broader than that. Currently, ERCOT is assessing the needs of the reliability assessment required by SB1281. As ERCOT reviews what is needed to comply with that, they will bring thoughts back to PLWG. iv)   It was noted that in addition to the winter scenarios related to WS Uri, the group should look at scenarios related to hurricanes and other events.   4)    KTC- 15-6 RMR and MRA Services analysis for Batteries – a)    ERCOT <a style="color: #0563c1;" href="https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/12/14/Concept_Potential_NPRR_related_to_RMR_12152021_PLWG.pdf">presentation</a> posted and given about a potential NPRR related to reliability must run (RMR). They are planning to propose changes to the MW threshold, the analysis time frame, and required notices. The focus is on what the requirements will be for participation in RMR and whether system changes will be required. b)    ERCOT was asked whether they are going to recommend a MW cut-off and answered that they may consider something small like 15-20MW of the maximum capacity. They are currently looking at what makes sense for different study cases. c)     The group raised several issues ranging from transmission issues associated with RMR, schemes and breaker scenarios. These issues will be further fleshed out as the discussion progresses. d)    It was noted that some of the issues raised relate to batteries and ERCOT was asked to expand on when more discussion would be coming back to PLWG regarding battery-specific issues. ERCOT stated that they’ll have to bring thoughts back to PLWG early next year.   5)    NPRR 1070 - Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions a)    ERCOT filed comments addressing the fact that they don’t think it is appropriate to move this revision forward at this time because of the forthcoming rulemaking for 16 TAC 25.101 at the PUC that will impact these same protocol sections. They think it will be better to wait until that direction is provided. ERCOT also thinks that the new paragraph 7(d) that adds language proposing additional economic benefits that should be considered carefully. This is directly in the scope of the rulemaking. In the meantime, ERCOT supports continued stakeholder discussion. b)    Some stakeholders disagreed that there was a need to wait for the PUC direction. c)     The sponsor agreed to continue to keep this tabled until the Commission provides direction and agrees with the discussions continuing at ERCOT to assess the impact of GTC’s and thermal constraints. They plan to look at providing information to the PUC for the Commissioners to consider as they start looking at how to implement SB1281.   6)    PGRR 095 – Establish Minimum Deliverability Criteria a)    Comments have been filed by ERCOT and LCRA. b)    ERCOT addressed previous comments provided and stakeholder discussions about the implementation of a minimum amount of resource capacity to a percentage, and to refer to a list of types of resources to which this is intended to apply. ERCOT also stated that they don’t support the inclusion of DC Tie imports in this PGRR as they don’t fall into the narrow intention of this revision. They do support continued discussion of ways to incorporate the benefits of DC Ties by other means. c)     There are both market and reliability implications to the DC Tie discussion that go beyond the criteria proposed in PGRR095 and require flushing out the reliability benefits of DC Ties. It was suggested that TAC could be asked to provide guidance on this item. PLWG will provide comments to ROS regarding this issue. d)    LCRA’s comments seek to add hydro to the list of dispatchable resources. e)    One commenter pointed out that a portion of the ERCOT proposed language is speaking to fuel-type and in other portions speaking to technology type. The question was raised as to whether it was better to bifurcate those or if there was a nuclear, coal, fuel oil, gas, or hydro unit that is not dispatchable? It was acknowledged that nuclear may not truly be dispatchable. Alternatively, the group could choose to just use one or the other. ERCOT stated that they took these lists from other sections of the protocols and are trying to remain consist across the protocols. f)     It was pointed out that nuclear, coal, and gas are all steam turbines, and that steam can include concentrated photovoltaic. Reciprocating engines use fossil fuels. The commenter stated that it should be fuel or technology. g)    The idea of using a defined term “fuel type” was proposed and whether it would be appropriate to define it was discussed. ERCOT clarified that the term is not included in the protocols currently. h)    PLWG made a desktop edit, regarding hydro, and will return this revision to ROS.   7)    PGRR 096 – Achieve Consistent Representation of DG in Steady-State Models a)    Comments were posted by CenterPoint regarding scenarios where visibility of DER’s is diminished. Currently there are resources for which the TDSP does not receive telemetry data for units that don’t provide separate load and generation data, as they have a single meter. The TDSP only receives data at 15 minute increments unless the resource is registered as an DESR or DGR. b)    ERCOT’s purpose is to avoid double-counting of resources, and is not in conflict with CenterPoint’s approach - I.e. DESR and DGR vs the more broad DER. SODG also registers with ERCOT, and will soon be providing 10 second data. The entities that register with ERCOT provide data to ERCOT. These should not also be included in TSP driven reports of DER to avoid double-counting of resources. c)     ERCOT would like to move this forward to address data inconsistencies because it is time to start the next planning cycle, which will go through 2028, and while this revision would be too late for the current planning cycle they want to avoid this scenario in future planning cycles. This will remain tabled for another month to allow further discussion at PLWG in January. Stakeholders are asked to consider what the consistency should look like.   8)    PGRR 098 – Consideration of Load Shed in Transmission Planning Criteria a)    This was filed by LCRA to address P6 contingency scenarios to keep load reliably served during planned outages. b)    The definition of off-peak and on-peak was raised as an item needing clarification. The sponsor stated that TSP’s are required to use an off-peak survey by NERC requirements, referring to off-peak seasons, not necessarily off-peak load hours. Their intention was to leave it open to the planner running the study to select the best case for analysis. c)     This was kept tabled for further discussion of the definition for off-peak conditions.   9)    Other Business a)    PGRR 100 – Steady State Case Building Timeline i)      This was filed by SSWG to address study cases. It is driven by the GMD assessment criteria and the TAC ECL issues that have led to discussion of extreme study case scenarios, and the ESSC version 35 changes currently taking place at SSWG. ii)    PLWG will wait to see what ROS elects to do with this revision.