Frame

Meeting Summary - 04/09/2025 PRS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
04/10/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/20250409PRShero.png" width="827" height="622" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=dba72422-fe21-4580-b1fd-b4c2e00b8f02">▶️</a>1 - Antitrust Admonition</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5896ba5d-4894-4405-9d6d-088c857621e7">▶️</a>2 - Approval of Minutes (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the March 12, 2025 PRS meeting minutes as revised by PRS added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a9bff63a-c6c9-450f-b766-b76d14e40136">▶️</a>3 - TAC Update</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC approved all items sent to them.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=4217e745-85f6-4359-9fe0-8dbc0d9482b0">▶️</a>4 - PRS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/PRS-Strategic-Objectives-Draft-20250409.pdf">PRS-Strategic-Objectives-Draft-20250409.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the PRS Strategic Objectives added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Transitioned from goals to strategic objectives, with minimal changes at PRS due to prescriptive requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Modified formatting and wording while retaining core content.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on automatic documents elimination project, with progress noted to be about one-third complete.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Importance of the RTC initiative and backlog management highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Planned to place changes on the combo ballot and forward to TAC for approval.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=39ddf2f0-c608-4e9c-9eb1-277d79acd9eb">▶️</a>5 - Project Update</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/PRS_April_2025_Project_Update.pdf">PRS_April_2025_Project_Update.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1145 was successfully implemented as planned in March.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is an update on NPRR1253 concerning an approach to address publishing schedules, with plans to proceed by May.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Troy Anderson apologized for the late delivery of materials due to delays in completing certain IAs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A problem was discovered with NPRR1253 concerning protocol requirements, which will require a long-term solution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An update on accessing ESR data is expected in the next couple of weeks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a request for more information on how data value changes when publishing moves from every SCED run to every five minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">MPIM series of projects might be reworked, and updates are expected by next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Details of FTE additions from revision requests since 2020 were discussed, with a focus on staffing needs and hiring challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Challenges in recruiting, particularly in the GMS area, were acknowledged.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andy Nguyen raised concerns about aging projects and priorities amid major projects on the horizon.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A plan to revisit a list of over 50 approved yet undelivered items from May to July 2025 was discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about ERCOT's efforts to tackle staffing, funding, and prioritizing projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio raised concerns about language gaps in NPRR1214 requiring additional time and adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kathy Scott questioned the credibility of project priority rankings and their impact on project delays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback suggests a need to reassess project priorities, including those termed as aging projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TWG continues to focus on RTC and queue-related projects, with meetings scheduled on the 24th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No additional questions were raised at the end of the discussion and the session concluded with appreciation for the work behind gathering the information.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e0463c11-3966-4bcc-a37b-6b354cd4279e">▶️</a>6 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization (Vote) (*) denotes no impact</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b1b6ab26-9a74-4a05-b7e6-0ffc9fa73751">▶️</a>6.01 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1214 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1214 and NPRR1226 were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal to add these items to the combo ballot and table them until IA termination.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">General agreement from participants on the proposed approach.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f9353227-b76e-4bc0-b76c-1c72d898100f">▶️</a>6.02 - NPRR1226, Estimated Demand Response Data</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is concern about the delay in receiving the Impact Analysis (IA) for NPRR1226, which has been awaited for two months.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is a significant load of over 12,000 MW that needs assessment, crucial for market understanding.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted the necessity to move quickly due to increasing load demands and the risk of missing critical timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton received feedback and noted the importance of the IA for the upcoming year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about waiting on SB6 as it may not directly address the issue and could delay implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on rolling out the NPRR1226 before the next winter season to avoid operational issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Missing deadlines could delay the process until September, affecting winter readiness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The delay is expected to be resolved in May.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1238 and NPRR1214 are to be tabled for one month with NPRR1226 already tabled.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=48e4ffbe-3c16-4d72-911b-62369ece698b">▶️</a>6.03 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Cost Recovery Payment</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 3/12/25 PRS Report as amended by the 3/20/25 ERCOT comments and the 4/8/25 Impact Analysis for NPRR1229 with a recommended effective date of upon system implementation for Section 9.5.3 with a recommended priority of 2028 and rank of 5100 and the first of the month following PUCT approval for the remaining sections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion carries with two ‘no’ votes from the consumer segment, and one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The council discussed the approval of NPRR1229, focusing on the timeline for implementation and cost implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Presentation of the proposed implementation time frame; no project for eight to ten months with costs ranging between $100,000 to $200,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Goff consistently opposed, questioning the necessity of spending on something that rarely occurs and suggesting manual invoicing as a more cost-effective approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ino highlighted that the NPRR includes a manual component and proposed a system change for future automation if needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the priority of the automation feature, with some members suggesting delaying it until 2026 or later.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The concept of gray boxing the automation language was introduced to allow flexibility for future implementation decisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Troy Anderson mentioned strategic project prioritization and suggested setting a target year for automation later than 2026.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Blake Holt supported delaying automation, aligning with the notion of fiscal responsibility, emphasizing the rarity of occurrences.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion for a separate ballot was requested, which required further discussion among stakeholders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification of the motion proposal, including manual invoicing until potential future system automation.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/20250409NPRR1229Ballot.png" width="800" height="775" /> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=bb09d268-044b-49b4-abc0-e9d1ebaa71b7">▶️</a>6.04 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1238 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There were opposing votes on NPRR1238 during the last meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Uncertainty exists whether those opposed to NPRR1238 are agreeable to tabling it unanimously.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus to table NPRR1238 for one month to give ERCOT time to solidify the IA.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=567391ef-ab12-4186-a408-1252d5fd4e36">▶️</a>6.05 - 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 and forward to TAC the 3/12/25 PRS Report and 1/28/25 Impact Analysis for NPRR1271 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The NPRR1271 was recommended for approval as submitted last month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No further thoughts or questions were raised regarding NPRR1271.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It was agreed to add NPRR1271 to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1271 does not involve any project or cost.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=33d5afd3-89ca-43d9-a5be-606b623d5ace">▶️</a>6.06 - NPRR1275, Expansion of Qualifying Pipeline Definition for Firm Fuel Supply Service in Phase 3*</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1275 and refer the issue to WMS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Comments were filed by the IMM regarding NPRR1275.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Jeff McDonald provided context and support for including qualified natural gas resources in FFSS to increase competition and potentially lower costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about including these resources constituting double payment, and potentially displacing oil resources, reducing reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the distinction between qualified natural gas and oil resources, the need for risk premiums, and penalties for nonperformance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Debate over the penalty for nonprovision to incentivize performance and assess financial risk.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification sought on existing program opposition, concept of FFSS, and increased resiliency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consideration of how real-time market signals and revenues affect resource reliability and FFSS program utility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Further discussions on the risk premium approach and differential reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Suggestion for more discussions on NPRR1275 across ERCOT and stakeholder groups to inform the commission.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Different perspectives on the need for and timing of protocol changes and budgeting for on-site vs. off-site resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal to table NPRR1275 at PRS, refer discussions to WMS, and prepare issue lists for future deliberations.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=141e9fbc-4487-44ad-b5fe-b4caa94c2832">▶️</a>6.07 - SCR830, Expose Limited API Endpoints Using Machine-to-Machine Authentication</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 2/12/25 PRS Report and 4/8/25 Impact Analysis for SCR830 with a recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 4750 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No questions or comments were received on the IA for SCR830.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f2160b3c-e08b-4de1-b6f3-ebaad18b01b7">▶️</a>7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion began on section seven regarding revision requests tabled at PRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of possible vote on the tabled revision requests was mentioned.</li> </ul> <h4>7.01 - 7.04</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c87dbb39-14b4-491f-887d-28523dc7979d">▶️</a>7.05 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King from ERCOT explained the nontraditional approach to mitigate energy storage resources (ESRs).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's design aims to avoid constant mitigation to allow resources to operate effectively.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mitigation applies only when a resource is flagged with a large helping shift factor to resolve a transmission constraint.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A backcast showed the impact affected 0.34% of all intervals in 2023 data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT added a filter so mitigation doesn't apply if a resource's available stored energy is below 25%.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith raised concerns about constant online presence of ESRs and their offer management impacting future obligations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton expressed concerns about the 25% threshold and its interaction with ongoing SOC requirements for ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about making the mitigation framework practical, not just theoretical.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR1255 is currently tabled; the plan is to discuss it further in WMS, including considering its holistic impact.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b8f87735-12ac-49cc-baff-e73bcdccf83f">▶️</a>7.06 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion focused on NPRR1262, which was addressed at the recent ERCOT board of directors meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT and Lancium have reached an agreement on licensing the relevant patent portfolio for CLRs in the ancillary services market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Chad Seeley presented the agreement to the board on 4/8/2025 and attached it to item 11 of the board agenda.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT plans to issue a market notice with the executed license agreement and more explanations will be provided there.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The license agreement didn't initially include schedule A, which lists around 30 patents; this schedule will be made public on ERCOT's website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A specific patent referred to as the '433 patent, a primary one with prior contentions, is included in the list.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The item was tabled, requiring no immediate action.</li> </ul> <h4>7.07 - Not Discussed</h4> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=21e8e543-b88b-42c2-a95a-f7b850c0df98">▶️</a>7.08 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1264 was briefly discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT requested a one-month extension to keep NPRR1264 on the table.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request was accommodated, with a possible vote anticipated for the May PRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment of thanks for tabling and filing comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for additional time to address specific questions raised in comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussion scheduled for the next month.</li> </ul> <h4>7.09 - 7.10</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=8264e4c4-17f7-4598-9881-a3703afc4e78">▶️</a>7.11 - NPRR1267, Large Load Interconnection Status Report (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1267 as amended by the 2/28/25 Reliant comments added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the progress and status of NPRR1267.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1267 has been tabled as it wasn't defining what a large load was, pending NPRR1234 which was recently approved by the board.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Comments from Reliant, Oncor, Google, and Lancium have been incorporated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Agreement to put NPRR1267 on the combo ballot with February 28 Reliant comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Colocation status reporting discussed, focusing on maintaining customer confidentiality and requiring aggregation if necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Colocation status will protect customer confidentiality and report on number of sites and MW, without specifying particular loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Guidance referred to keeping data confidentiality with a minimum of five loads for aggregation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Understanding that if a load is the only one in an area, it won't be reported or will be aggregated to a higher area.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4>7.12 - 7.15</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7cd15e90-2deb-4929-83c2-fe3db2341b92">▶️</a>8 - Review of Revision Request Language (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting involved the review of revision request language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a vote scheduled regarding the proposed language for revisions.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=87aa13f6-0dc3-4b9b-b2ed-8fd833afeab5">▶️</a>8.1 - NPRR1276, Move OBD to Section 22 – Emergency Response Service Procurement Methodology</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1276 as submitted added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1276 is part of the effort to move OBDs into protocols and guides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The goal is to satisfy strategic objectives related to ERS procurement methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The process involves a 'forklift' of language into attachments of the protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Additional changes include updates to section references and removal of the standalone revision process and OBD.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consideration was given to include NPRR1276 in the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=fb33d944-4d25-4282-9b35-8e18914bbc0f">▶️</a>8.2 - NPRR1277, Revisions to EAL Formula</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1277 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1277 focuses on revisions to the EAL formula and is primarily credit-focused.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This NPRR has been in discussion for over a year at the Credit Finance Subgroup (CFSG).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The process has been collaborative and transparent, with the related language previewed without receiving comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The NPRR addresses issues of overcollateralization during double price spikes and aims to reduce variability in TPE formulas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion suggests the NPRR might be ready to proceed, but additional review is requested.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal to table NPRR1277 for further review, with a potential vote in the next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Impact analysis suggests implementation four to six months after project kickoff post-approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus to leave NPRR1277 tabled for one month within the current committee.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3>9 - Other Business </h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=fb33d944-4d25-4282-9b35-8e18914bbc0f">▶️</a>9.1 - 2026 Block Calendar</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/2026-Draft-Block-Meeting-Schedule.v2.pdf">2026-Draft-Block-Meeting-Schedule.v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preview of the 2026 block calendar was discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The board has settled their dates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Moving PRS meetings to Wednesdays to avoid conflict with open meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tentative plans pending TAC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Wednesdays are preferred as they are less disruptive.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Option to cancel meetings if agendas are light.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=854e25d5-514a-4d01-8b24-c3e6c32eb761">▶️</a>10 - Combo Ballot (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the combined ballot as presented carried unanimously with no abstentions</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/20250409ComboItems_rtfvif23cov4.png" width="797" height="136" /> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/20250409ComboItems.png"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/20250409Combo.png" width="800" height="755" /></a> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5f0882aa-5ed1-46ea-9918-ad33d3f26b17">▶️</a>11 - Adjourn</h3>