Frame

Meeting Summary - 09/19/24 TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
09/20/2024

<h2><img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/09:19%20TAC%20HERO.png" width="871" height="655" /></h2> <h2>1 - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=9cc2887b-c3b8-48a7-abab-76086b853120">2</a> - Discussion of Stakeholder Process and Communications - Caitlin Smith/ERCOT Staff</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/Stakeholder%20Process%20091924_rev2_fi3xml7jmn7p.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stakeholder Process 091924_rev2_pdf</a></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mini workshop on stakeholder process and communications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Previous discussions at the July 25 and August 29 open meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">References to NPRR1224 and NOGRR245.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of communication improvements in the TAC process including subcommittees and working groups.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for transparent communication to the board and PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus on making sure information on contentious issues is communicated earlier.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5af66214-477a-4dba-bb93-6f76be476d15">2.1</a> - Review of Current Stakeholder Process</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ann Boren provided a high-level review of current stakeholder structure and process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation of ERCOT stakeholder committee structure, including working groups, task forces, and subcommittees.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Description of subcommittees (PRS, RMS, ROS, and WMS) and their roles as voting bodies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC's role in the process and its composition as laid out in the bylaws.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Details on the voting structures for TAC and subcommittees.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation of the revision request process, focusing on NPRRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Role of PRS in the language consideration and impact analysis of NPRRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review process by TAC for NPRR recommendations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential for R&M to review NPRR requests if opposing votes occur in TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board receives recommendations from both TAC and R&M for final decision-making.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PUC has the final approval on revision requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments can be filed at any time during the stakeholder process.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">If TAC has a different recommendation than R&M, both recommendations go to the board, with presentations from the TAC recommendation by the TAC chair and the R&M recommendation by the R&M chair. </li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6de97dfb-a9a6-418d-9dbc-76017e1ce984">2.2</a> - Possible Process Improvements</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential drafts or proposals discussed: modifying subcommittee voting threshold, minimum time requirements for revision requests at TAC, and encouraging formal comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Subcommittee voting threshold currently at 50%. Proposals include higher thresholds to encourage earlier debates and better records.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cory Philips reported very few revision requests met the 50% but did not meet the two-thirds threshold in recent history.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Minimum time requirements between PRS and TAC suggested, potentially similar to PUC's 30-day requirement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement for stakeholders to file formal comments to ensure transparent and early communication of positions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on making the process more formalized for stakeholders to engage and better filtering of ideas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised over modifying voting thresholds which might hinder smaller participants and stifle idea flow.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback on potential impacts of raising the voting threshold and delaying processes versus solving real issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to increase time between PRS and TAC to avoid rush decisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Formally recognizing conversations and compromises happening between PRS and TAC in formal comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on formalizing commission review processes to address discomfort and ensure due process for appeals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ideas on improving stakeholder process involving commissioners, board members, and general approach to complicated issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">General agreement on importance of filing formal comments to show seriousness and level of stakeholder engagement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighting difference in roles of TAC and the board post-Senate Bill Two, and dealing with resulting procedural confusion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from Barksdale English representing commission staff, encouraging more consensus and thoughtful discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions on revisiting responsibilities and roles for better market reliability and driving consensus through the body.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=13828ebc-5174-4f9c-ab08-c4cf236e8b0e">2.3</a> - Stakeholder/TAC Communications to Board</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1190 and its impact on fairness and reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification needed on TAC's role and how it communicates directly with the board without ERCOT's filter.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The existing process allows for stakeholder comments but may need changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions about the quality and content of feedback from both corporate and tech members to the board.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ensuring that stakeholders can address the board directly if desired.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the historical context of policy decisions, particularly the shift from a zonal to a nodal market design.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouraging the board to reach out to stakeholders if they have specific questions not addressed by ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments on enhancing the communication process between TAC and the board.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recommendations for presenting information and enabling direct stakeholder engagement in board meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential for a more systematic approach to stakeholder engagement in board interactions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possibility of forming a subcommittee to focus on improving communications and processes between TAC and the board.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=63f334a9-b304-4838-aeb3-62701832e02e">2.4</a> - Comments to the Board on Revision Requests</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification that the process for making comments to the board has always existed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments can be made directly to the board in written form or verbally.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on how TAC members sometimes vote no without significant follow-up.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board has the option to ask stakeholders for follow-up questions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is encouraged to provide its views on certain items, such as NPRR1190.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders and TAC members should utilize the existing process to make their points known.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board is data-driven and looks for a complete picture from TAC, especially when no votes are present.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of potential ways TAC can provide more complete data to the board.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mentioned the importance of more detailed comments from members on close votes or non-unanimous recommendations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board seeks full perspective and understanding on issues, especially when segments have different perspectives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions on improving the communication process between TAC and the board, including capturing more detailed data on close or controversial votes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on how the board can better engage with TAC and corporate members for a complete data-driven recommendation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential process improvements suggested to enhance board understanding and decision-making.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of historical context and experience in interpreting segment voting patterns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments on how to handle no votes and abstentions effectively.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions about ERCOT's potential role in providing additional comments or data in certain cases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders provided feedback on how to improve transparency and clarity in communications to the board.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=58fdba71-ad6e-48e0-b9ab-01c284e37295">3</a> - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes Vote Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the August 28, 2024 meeting minutes as revised by TAC added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Concerns about the timeline for subsequent NOGRR filing post-PUC approval, expected in October, aiming for board submission in February.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Difference between market trial timeline and what QSEs were attesting to noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Support for earlier training on certain items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Discussion on simulator functionality and tracking outcomes between real-time co-optimization engine and current ODC, especially regarding committed capacity.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Bob Helton raised concerns about separate invoices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Discussion on issues with completing membership requests tied to weatherization report emails; ERCOT indicated this will not be an issue after this year.</li> </ul> </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ned Bonskowksi Submitted edits to the minutes to capture high-level discussion points and member concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about ERCOT summarizing stakeholder positions to the board</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NOGRR245 Bifurcated Approach</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Real-Time Co-Optimization</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">2025 Membership Application Process</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=991e5e84-39c6-426b-b692-4739cc10bcf0">4</a> - Meeting Updates Caitlin Smith</h2> The Public Utilities Commission met twice on August 29 and September 12. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No revision requests were up for adoption during these meetings.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=27bf1e4f-0fa7-40ac-bcfb-0546ad4b9f0f">5</a> - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions Ann Boren/IMM</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/5-revision-request-summary-091924_rev1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5-revision-request-summary-091924_rev1.pdf</a></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eight revision requests are on the TAC agenda this month</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Five of the revision requests are sponsored by ERCOT and three by market participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reasons for revisions include:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Two being board and/or PUC directives</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Five general system process improvements</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">One regulatory</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1188 has a budgetary impact of $1.8-$2.5 million.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1244 has a budgetary impact of $70k-$100k </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The remaining revision requests have either no impact or are captured in other revision requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports all revision requests and provides positive market impact statements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">CFSG has reviewed all requests and found no credit implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM supports NPRR1188 and has no opinion on the remaining revision requests.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=9add59c4-067d-4468-9f0a-27f17522ce3f">6</a> - PRS Report - Vote - Diana Coleman</h2> Diana Coleman from CPS Energy presented the September PRS report. Three key items were considered in the report: <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/6.%20PRS%20Presentation%20to%20TAC%20091924.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">6. PRS Presentation to TAC 091924.pdf</a> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=bc54d3bf-7611-4624-b52b-8df37768426c">6.1</a> - NPRR1188, Implement Nodal Dispatch and Energy Settlement for Controllable Load Resources</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1188 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report and to recommend approval of OBDRR046 as submitted and the 6/27/23 Impact Analysis carries unanimously.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1188 proposed by ERCOT to change dispatch and pricing for Controllable Load Resources (CLRs) in response to market design blueprint phase one.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">IA: Between $1.8M and $2.5M. Priority 2026; Rank 390</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PRS unanimously recommended approval as amended by July 15 Oncor comments on August 8.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PRS unanimously endorsed and forwarded the revised August 8 report and June 27, 2023 IA with a recommended 2026 priority and rank of 390 on September 12.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/TAC09:29%20NPRR1188%20Combo%20Items.png" width="861" height="49" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/09:29%20TAC%201180%20Combo%20ballot.png" width="860" height="848" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=941c708e-3df2-4efb-976d-13165045e9b4">6.2</a> - NPRR1237, Retail Market Qualification Testing Requirements</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1237 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The item NPRR1237 had no opposition and was described as having no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1237 originates from CenterPoint.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It sets conditions for ERCOT to require all competitive retailers, both new and existing, and TDSPs to complete retail market qualification testing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PRS unanimously approved NPRR1237 as amended by the August 6 RMS comments on August 8.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">In September, there was unanimous support to endorse and forward it to TAC with the August 8 PRS report and the August 27 impact analysis.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=93326243-c025-447e-9136-a10766b6512b">6.3</a> - NPRR1244, Clarification of Controllable Load Resource Primary Frequency Response Responsibilities</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1244 as recommended by PRS in the 9/12/24 PRS Report; and the 9/13/24 Revised Impact Analysis; with a recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 4710.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Minor IA title change and comments on priority and rank for NPRR1244 from Priority Power aligning PFR provisions to provide ECRS and PRC calculation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">August 8: PRS voted to recommend approval as submitted. September: Voted to endorse and forward to TAC the August 8 PRS report as revised by PRS with September 6 impact analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT expedited review suggested moving 1244 priority to 2026 due to RTC commitments, new rank 4710.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposed moving NPRR1237, NPRR1188, and NPRR1244 to combo ballot. Recusal for NPRR1188 noted and separate ballots decided for NPRR1188 and OBDRR046.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Discussion on NPRR1247 Details: NPRR1247 tabled due to lack of urgency and need for ERCOT white paper clarification. Stakeholders required more information before voting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Future Action for NPRR1247 Details: ERCOT to prioritize the document and clarify it separately from NPRR1247's proposed language.</li> </ul> <h4>Contributions:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Troy Anderson Role: ERCOT Portfolio Management Contribution: Suggested moving NPRR1244 priority to post-RTC (2026) and new rank.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Barksdale English Role: Commission Staff Contribution: Queried about NPRR1247's delay and requested clarity on urgency and language from ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Matt Arthur Role: ERCOT Contribution: Provided assurance on NPRR1247 urgency being separate from white paper guidance.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=b79d80d5-3b97-436d-8842-2e61fa002af7">7</a> - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC Possible Vote Caitlin Smith</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=4f712715-6b29-43ca-9fdc-fb7669b05a23">7.1</a> - OBDRR046, Related to NPRR1188, Implement Nodal Dispatch and Energy Settlement for Controllable Load Resources</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">See item 6.1 for ballot details.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=826609d7-fd5d-4b96-acdb-a6535b998987">7.2</a> - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">For energy storage resource terminology alignment for the single model era.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to keep the item tabled while waiting for associated NPRR1246.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6e549664-4a59-4f31-aeee-4157dce63ace">7.3</a> - NPRR1215, Clarifications to the Day-Ahead Market DAM Energy-Only Offer Calculation</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1215 as recommended by TAC in the 6/24/24 TAC Report as amended by the 8/1/24 ERCOT comments as revised by TAC added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1215 was initially approved by TAC and the board but ERCOT identified issues led to the board remanding it back to TAC for edits and corrections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT filed comments on August 1 addressing identified issues, specifically changing "credit reduction" to "credit exposure".</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Further changes deemed necessary were made during subsequent reviews.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Alfredo Moreno with ERCOT confirmed that all required corrections have been addressed, and the item is ready for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No additional questions or concerns raised by participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A recommendation to approve NPRR1215, incorporating August 1 ERCOT comments and other necessary revisions by TAC, was made.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=99a9d2bc-f379-4e86-8ed2-f5ac577bfd69">8</a> - RMS Report - John Schatz</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brief verbal update regarding Texas set 5.0 and MarkeTrak SCR817, both retail projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">MarKeTrak training held with over 165 attendees.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commendation for Tammy Stewart from ERCOT for her excellent training.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Another training session planned closer to the implementation date of Texas set 5.0 at the end of October.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Texas set 5.0 testing in progress with all existing retail market participants and new representatives involved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TDSPs working with ERCOT to get testbed transactions flowing next week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMS in the middle of an email vote to approve a revised version of the Texas set 5.0 implementation plan.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Modifications made to the implementation plan for clarity regarding specific transactions at 06:00 a.m. on Saturday.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=3182e7a0-e3ce-4808-9a9a-9ec84549a675">9</a> - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich</h2> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/ROS_Update_to_TAC%209%2019%2024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ROS_Update_to_TAC 9 19 24.pdf</a> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=48616fa8-d492-4c3b-9bb2-3dcccf238e52">9.1</a> - NOGRR263, Related to NPRR1244, Clarification of Controllable Load Resource Primary Frequency Response Responsibilities</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR263 as recommended by ROS in the 9/9/24 ROS Report; and the 9/13/24 Revised Impact Analysis added to combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=149af27e-0812-420f-a110-c1f0ed31292b">9.2</a> - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NOGRR264 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Approved IAs for NOGRR264 and NPRR1235, both back at TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PGRR107 amended with ERCOT August comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1180 is at PRS, believed to be approved and will return for IA and added to ROS October agenda for potential modifications based on ERCOT comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">AS methodology had some extensions, more details at WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Next meeting is October 3, WebEx only.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=69fdcb2e-3e54-4679-90f1-29124e31c798">9.3</a> - Major Transmission Elements MTE List</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the Major Transmission Elements (MTE) List as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=276748d0-b4ff-4718-9874-666f0409884a">10</a> - WMS Report - Eric Blakey</h2> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/WMS%20Report%20To%20TAC%20-%20September%2019%202024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WMS Report To TAC - September 19 2024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two items will be voted on: Proposed changes to AS services and congestion revenue rights auction mitigation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New feature at WMS: Monthly large load interconnection reports. Last report showing an increase of 4,439 MW since August update.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1241 tabled and referred to WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1202 remains tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229; concerns about cost recovery and policy alignment raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional comments submitted by Celtics Electric co-op regarding NPRR1229.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about whether to approve, reject, or seek policy decision from PUC on Revision Request 1229.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff mentioned NPRR1229 should be rejected because creating payments to generators to turn off can lead to unintended consequences. The current market design already sends a lower price signal to generators when ERCOT needs less power from then.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next WMS meeting scheduled for October 7.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=6f895b0e-9fc8-4181-867b-6376603c9ea9">11</a> - Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2025 - Possible Vote - Luis Hinojosa</h2> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/TAC_2025_AS_Methodology_09192024_v5.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TAC_2025_AS_Methodology_09192024_v5.pdf</a> Broad Picture: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed past changes to AS methodology such as NPRR1224 and NPRR1232.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasized need to review and approve AS methodology through stakeholder processes and PUCO review.</li> </ul> Timeline and Stakeholder Process: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Started discussions in July for the AS methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">AS study in parallel with the legislature, PUC, IMM, and ERCOT due in September 2424.</li> </ul> Regulation Service Changes: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Switch to using net load forecast error instead of historical regulation deployment and net load variability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Data now incorporates wind and solar ramping inputs, improving visibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed methodology suggests an increase for 2025.</li> </ul> Responsive Reserve Service Changes: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No methodology changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IFRO for 2024 updated, setting RRS-PFR limit to 1365 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slight increase of 9 MW due to updated RS table.</li> </ul> Concerns Raised: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reduction in regulation during winter mornings causes operational concern.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Queries on potential risks due to regulation reduction and flat RRS values.</li> </ul> ERCOT Changes: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three changes proposed: adjusting sunset hour coverage, aligning frequency recovery portion with RRS methodology, and using the greater of the two capacities for ERCOT quantity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Overall decrease in ERCOT quantities for 2025 from 2024.</li> </ul> Non-spin Changes: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change to use four-hour net load forecast error for hours ending 23 to 6 instead of six-hour error to reflect available offline resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slight increase from last year but would have been higher without methodology change.</li> </ul> Stakeholder Comments and Concerns: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns regarding relying on RUC for covering net load forecast errors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions on how changes affect capacity margin and need for further analysis.</li> </ul> Evolution Roadmap: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Probabilistic analysis for 2026.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dynamic calculation of ancillary services closer to operating day for 2027.</li> </ul> Vote on 2025 Methodology: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse the 2025 Ancillary Service Methodology as presented by ERCOT passed with one opposed and two abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/09:29%20TAC%20AS%20Ballot.png" width="872" height="865" />   Additional Disclosures: Jeff McDonald (IMM) did not oppose but mentioned they'd prefer lessons from AS study incorporated. <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=86cc7fe7-e975-43cf-826c-51c386b221ae">12</a> - Large Flexible Load Task Force Report - Bill Blevins</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Task force to go into hibernation mode, potentially canceling some upcoming meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reported growth in potential large load from 12GW in 2019 to around 54GW currently, driven by crypto mining and AI data centers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Breakdown of the 54 GW includes ~30GW crypto, ~19GW for AI data centers, and 4-5GW potentially hydrogen-related.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed rules for interconnection process moving forward, focus on loads greater than 1 GW requiring multiple connections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Asked to ask TAC on where to update reporting large load queue: TAC, ROS, or WMS; transparency and centralization important.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on customer information and its privacy; ERCOT navigating statutory obligations while aiming for transparency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognition of significant progress made by the task force, approved 15GW for future interconnections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback on the need for detailed, transparent reporting on new load development, including timelines and impacts. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes mentioned he will support NPRR1234 so that the collection of more granular information of large loads will be available to report on.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=747c7f03-933b-4851-aacd-d85e1022c143">13</a> - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Brenden Sager</h2> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/TAC_CFSG_20sept2024.SD.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TAC_CFSG_20sept2024.SD.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed NPRRs and EAL change calculations and credit exposure updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Update on NPRR1205: Changes include adjusted ratings requirements and doubling credit limits, affecting bank acceptability at ERCOT effective November 1.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Performance and surety bonds changes: new credit limits and ratings adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed the EAL calculation: Determines collateral requirements using max history of real-time liabilities, day-ahead factors, and forward adjustment factors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Credit team's nearing completion of a proposal for more effective matching of obligations to invoices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff requested for ERCOT credit department to present a proposal at a future TAC meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Continuation by Loretto (NRG): Further discussion on netting real-time and day-ahead, forward adjustment factor adjustments, and considering caps on RFAF.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review of several NPRRs with no credit implications; all were operational.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Increase in total potential exposure from $1.81 billion to $1.88 billion from July to August 2024, due to higher real-time and day-ahead prices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No unusual collateral call activity in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Breakdown and comparison of various types of credit exposure and collateral posted at ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1205: Monthly update on collateral limits for banks, showing no over-collateralization.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0dad5e63-5a83-4c2a-8dec-eb54a42f887b">14</a> - RTC+B Task Force Report Matt Mereness</h2> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/14%20RTCBTF_TAC_Update_09192024_v2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14 RTCBTF_TAC_Update_09192024_v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two-part presentation covering usual slides and AS demand curve white paper.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Announcement of go-live date for RTC+B; market trials starting May 5, 2025, and going live on December 5, 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Outline of completed actions and future milestones including parameter reviews for AAS proxy offer curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment of remaining issues and policy settings needed before market trials.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RTC simulator now operational; studies to be provided at next task force meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed market trials plan review and approach to training readiness with feedback from task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Summarized history and current issues regarding AS demand curves and ancillary services demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's commitment to resolving policy issues by April 2025 to ensure go-live readiness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions included potential changes to ORDC and as demand curves, with the need to consider impacts on ancillary service products.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM to provide analysis and recommendations within the next few weeks, aiming for resolution before April 2025.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=52312381-280a-4dd2-8ea5-0dbc001b9eaa">15</a> - ERCOT Reports</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=03384760-c53e-4876-966f-8005d9295fb3">15.1</a> - Potential Price Corrections - Matt Young</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e57e7bb4-ea4e-4fb7-8c2c-7bd774552463">15.1.1</a> - Aug. 9 – 10, 2024 – Incorrect Resource Data Impacting the Real-Time Market</h3> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/Potential%20Price%20Corrections%20Aug.%209-10%20'24%20-%20Incorrect%20Resource%20Data%20Impacting%20the%20Real-Time%20Market.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Potential Price Corrections Aug. 9-10 '24 - Incorrect Resource Data Impacting the Real-Time Market.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issue was identified on August 9, 2024, and fixed on August 10, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SCED intervals were rerun with the corrected resource data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market notices were issued on August 20 and September 17, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Criteria for price correction require either a 2% impact and more than $20,000 or a 20% impact and more than $2,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Five counterparties met the criteria over the two days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">On August 9, the largest impact was approximately $24,000 and 3.73%.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">On August 10, the largest impact was approximately $4,500 and 42%-43%.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Net charge difference on August 10 was approximately $281,000 with a 1.56% difference.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval will be sought at the October board meeting and presented at the October 9 RNM committee meeting.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3469c59a-a041-44f6-82f3-118ce3f97147">15.1.2</a> - Aug. 20, 2024 – Incorrect Recall of ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service</h3> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/Potential%20Price%20Corrections%20Aug.%2020%2024%20-%20Incorrect%20Recall%20of%20ECRS.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Potential Price Corrections Aug. 20 24 - Incorrect Recall of ECRS.pdf</a> Date of Issue: August 20, 2024 Issue Description: Incorrect recall of ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) due to a software defect in the UI. <h5>Details</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Operators attempted to recall 500 MW of ECRS but recalled 2000 MW due to the defect.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">System LAMBDA was approximately $850/MWh before recall and spiked to the offer cap of $5,001MWh after the recall.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The spike continued for about 25 seconds before operators corrected the recall.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">System LAMBDA then dropped to approximately $284/MWh after correction.</li> </ul> Fix Implemented: August 28, adjustment made to interface to prevent recurrence. <h5>Market Notifications</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two market notices sent out: one for the 30-day board approval period, one for settlements analysis.</li> </ul> <h5>Impact Analysis</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">37 counterparties impacted: 36 under Criteria 1, 1 under Criteria 2.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Maximum financial impact for a single party: $597,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Maximum percentage impact: 41.05% for both criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Total changes to ERCOT charges: Approximately $3.5 million.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Overall change: Approximately 2.4%.</li> </ul> <h5>Future Actions</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Seeking board approval on October 10, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presenting the issue at the RNN.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=12d2a193-9c5b-490e-80bb-59e589a99426">15.2</a> - CRR Performance Issues Update - Alfredo Moreno</h3> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/CRR-TAC_09192024_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CRR-TAC_09192024_final.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">High volumes and complexity in CRR auctions observed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent performance issues and current risks assessed through studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential CRR mitigation measures for the current auction closing today.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Detailed explanation of increasing variables in auctions: settlement points, CRR account holders, and counterparties.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval of NPRR1188 adding resource nodes, potentially increasing paths and transactions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Increase in transaction numbers causing runtime issues; highlighted with example sequence six taking over 365 hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant time spent on evaluating CRR system performance and technical capabilities; latest software update showing a 10-30% performance boost.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Studies conducted on a reduced capacity setting revealing auction runtimes of 230-250 hours, exceeding ERCOT’s preferred 100-hour runtime.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on the continuous increase in market activity leading to performance risks in long-term sequence auctions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mitigation plan includes splitting time of use transactions to manage oversubscription; triggering adjustments if transactions exceed 133,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus on CRR calendar preparedness for potential adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing plans to discuss midterm and long-term solutions, including revising CRR transaction thresholds to avoid auction readjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on technological capacity limitations and considerations for future improvements, including cloud outsourcing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Community input on prioritizing entities with load/resources in CRR auctions and suggestions to better align with growing solar energy needs.</li> </ul> <h3>Conclusions</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Risk mitigation measures for the current auction are in place, with the potential of triggering transaction adjustments if thresholds are exceeded.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Midterm and long-term solutions will be further discussed in upcoming meetings (CMWG, WMS, TAC).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Exploration of technical constraints and potential future solutions, including cloud computing, will continue.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6fa98d7f-5958-407c-8446-d1619af27ed1">15.3</a> - ERCOT 2025 Membership Application and Agreement Follow-Up - Katherine Gross</h3> <a style="box-sizing: inherit; outline: none; color: #0056b3; text-decoration: none; background-color: #ffffff; touch-action: manipulation; font-family: Poppins, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal;" href="/storage/docs/2024/09/ERCOT%202025%20Membership%20Application%20and%20Agreement%20Sept%2019%20TAC%2009162024.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ERCOT 2025 Membership Application and Agreement Sept 19 TAC 09162024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Catherine Gross provided updates on the 2025 membership application and agreement process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The membership application process will launch tomorrow.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Authorized representatives may face login issues if they haven't logged into the public portal prior to April 24.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Options to resolve login issues include creating new credentials or designating a different representative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Support is available via portalsupportercot.com for those encountering issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A market notice and email will be sent out tomorrow with details on the process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current system credentials used last year should still work, with some exceptions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Data and cryptocurrency centers will be classified as industrial consumers for the 2025 membership year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports broader discussions about updating membership segments to reflect the modern market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Most centers currently fit into the industrial consumer segment, but this is subject to future discussions.</li> </ul> Questions and Remarks: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Question: Asked about the email coming out and how it relates to the public portal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Response: Clarification that the public portal is separate from the weatherization portal causing issues.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Schubert</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Remark: Expressed concerns about cryptocurrency centers fitting into the industrial segment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Response: Consensus to use the industrial category for one year and to review segment compositions going forward.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clayton Greer</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Question: Inquired about the timeline for broader discussions on segment compositions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Response: Discussions will start for 2026 membership and are expected to take a year.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jennifer Schmitt</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Remark: Emphasized the need for representative stakeholder involvement and urged for immediate discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Response: ERCOT will look into how to initiate discussions.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Remark: Mentioned the need to review entire membership balance when altering any segment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Response: Considerations will include the impact on all segments.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=d25bb488-0bf9-42b9-9c50-223a00d7699a">16</a> - Other Business</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Priyanka Partisarathy from ERCOT provided an update on their mobile app.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An enhanced version of the mobile app will be released by the end of this month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new app is a complete rewrite with various enhancements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement for all attendees to download the ERCOT mobile app if they haven't already.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New features include an improved home screen with real-time data and a user-friendly lower navigation tray.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Popular ERCOT dashboards, including grid conditions, supply and demand, and fuel mix, are accessible in the app.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Meeting calendar function added, allowing users to add meetings to their personal calendars.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Personalized home settings and dark mode options are now available.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Push notifications for grid condition changes, including Texans alerts and EEA alerts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement to update or download the app when the new version is released.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=45f16f0d-0698-4030-aacd-9a5280318c95">17</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion carried unanimously <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/TAC%20Combo%20Ballot%20Items.png" width="846" height="185" /></li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/TAC%20Combo%20Ballot.png" width="811" height="801" /> <h2>18 - Adjourn</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Meeting adjourned.</li> </ul>