Frame

Meeting Summary - 04/23/25 TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
04/24/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/04222025TACHero.png" width="805" height="455" /></div> <h3>1 - Antitrust Admonition</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d5fb8437-3fb4-4e52-a30a-971f4c22581e">▶️</a>2 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)</h3> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/2-Draft-Minutes-TAC-20250326%20pdf.pdf">2-Draft-Minutes-TAC-20250326 pdf.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the March 26, 2025 meeting minutes as revised by TAC added to combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ned Bonskowski suggested edits to the minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Corrections related to NPRR1269 were made concerning the ASDC discussion and the $15 price floor context.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">An additional correction involved adding a missing last name, Agee.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The minutes were approved as revised by TAC.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=dfe73ca9-e347-4651-af62-0bd182de94a8">▶️</a>3 - Meeting Updates</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The ERCOT board met in April and recommended approval of all revision requests from TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was one opposing vote from OPUC on NPRR1190 and NPRR1269.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">These revision requests are set for PUC consideration on May 15.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=5b43cf71-f40f-42b8-85c0-beddd8112813">▶️</a>4 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/Revision-Request-Summary-042325_rev1.pdf">Revision-Request-Summary-042325_rev1.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three revision requests were up for TAC consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR264 will remain tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">All requests are for general system and process improvements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229 and SCR830 have financial impacts ranging from $100k to $200k.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">CFSG reviewed all requests and noted no credit implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports NPRR1271 and SCR830, has no opinion on NPRR1229.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM has no opinions on the revision requests.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=86008474-580c-4920-abc8-06c2ca654a93">▶️</a>5 - PRS Report (Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/5-PRS-Presentation-to-TAC-042325.pdf">5-PRS-Presentation-to-TAC-042325.pdf</a> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/5-PRS-Memo-to-TAC-042325%20pdf.pdf">5-PRS-Memo-to-TAC-042325 pdf.pdf</a> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=db4765e7-6f5e-46be-b30c-caaed103e5da">▶️</a>5.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Cost Recovery Payment</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PRS recommended approval of NPRR1229 with amendments by March 6 WMS comments and further amendments by March 20 ERCOT comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Opposition to NPRR1229: Concerns about cost shifting and deviation from previous market rules regarding the direct assignment of congestion costs. Commentary emphasized the perceived inequity and long-term reliability risks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Support for NPRR1229: Arguments focused on equity and fairness, suggesting partial cost recovery for resources impacted by constraint actions. Supporters highlighted oversight mechanisms and adjustments to the scope of NPRR1229 to address concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Key Comments:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Schubert opposed NPRR1229 over concerns of cost shifting and its effect on the market and reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">John Packard argued in favor, citing efforts to narrow its scope and ensure grid reliability. Emphasized the fairness of cost recovery for affected resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Blake Holt supported NPRR1229, noting it is aimed to address rare situations and implemented with rigor to minimize costs.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve NPRR1229 was made and seconded, aiming for PRS's report and related IA approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Voting Results: The motion carried with eight opposing votes and one abstention.</li> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/4-23-25-TAC-1229Ballot.png" width="804" height="893" /></div> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=228efc9c-4b82-436f-98d0-e14e77384935">▶️</a>5.2 - NPRR1271, Revision to User Security Administrator and Digital Certificates Opt-out Eligibility</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1271 as recommended by PRS in the 4/9/25 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1271 was unopposed and has no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On March 12, PRS voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On April 9, it was unanimously endorsed and forwarded with the March 12 PRS report and January 28 impact analysis.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b41743ca-c01b-4d1f-ad29-3bf88605bb1a">▶️</a>5.3 - SCR830, Expose Limited API Endpoints Using Machine-to-Machine Authentication</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of SCR830 as recommended by PRS in the 4/9/25 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On January 15, unanimous vote to recommend approval of SCR830 as submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On March 9, PRS unanimously endorsed and forwarded SCR830 to TAC with a PRS report from February 12.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Endorsement included priorities and rank for the change as seen in the April 8 IA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consideration to recommend approval of NPRR1271 and SCR830 as per PRS recommendation.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b92aa0ca-0db2-4cd6-ad0e-eaede3029234">▶️</a>5.4 - PRS Strategic Objectives</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve PRS Strategic Objectives as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No substantive changes to the strategic objectives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Format revised from goals to objectives, aligning with a new format.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The revised format is ready for voting.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8a67cd27-17e0-4993-a044-407693ca7dea">▶️</a>6 - Update on NPRR1275, Expansion of Qualifying Pipeline Definition for Firm Fuel Supply Service in Phase 3</h3> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/NPRR1275-Vistra-Presentation-for-TAC-20250423%20pdf.pdf">NPRR1275-Vistra-Presentation-for-TAC-20250423 pdf.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1275 involves the expansion of the qualifying pipeline definition for firm fuel service in Phase 3.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The aim is to enhance awareness before it becomes a voting item at TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PRS recommended approval in March, but there was opposition from the independent generator segment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PRS tabled the decision in April, with plans to refer the issue to WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PUCT is expected to consider this issue in docket 56000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The goal is to mitigate fuel supply disruptions that affect power generation during winter and improve electric sector resiliency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on supporting diversified fuel sources to avoid correlated disruption risks highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commissioners are considering options like a call option on fuel inventory and a capacity accredited portfolio standard.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern about whether controlled and contractual fuel storage can be equivalent in providing system resilience.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Different perspectives on having separate or unified products and standards for fueling solutions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some stakeholders suggest a single clearing price and product standard to ensure cost efficiency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There's debate about expanding the natural gas storage component and potential rulemaking pathways.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Although the NPRR could be expanded, it is essential to consider the difference in objectives for different fuel types.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders are asked to follow the open meeting for further developments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions around the implications of different approaches to reliability and cost considerations in fuel supply were crucial to the narrative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Addressing the lessons learned from past disruptions like Winter Storm Uri remains a priority.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration is being given to whether the NPRR should be indefinitely tabled pending commission rulemaking.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=915a1a13-bac6-43d0-9235-1336cf07f4e0">▶️</a>7 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR264 remains tabled pending NPRR1235.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5775f6e9-184f-4fe7-9da8-911a1f1f4ddd">▶️</a>8 - RMS Report</h3> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/2025-04-23-RMS-update-to-TAC-FINAL%20pdf.pdf">2025-04-23-RMS-update-to-TAC-FINAL pdf.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Unanimous approval of OBDRR054 for TDSP's preproduction verification testing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on testing issues with the retail electric provider not found in FlighTrak, despite having an ERCOT letter for production entry.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initiating revisions on the Texas market test plan led by Texas SET.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Unanimous approval for Texas SET change control to add transaction codes for inadvertent gain and customer decision to the 814_06 loss transaction notification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Texas SET change control concerning Friday disconnects for nonpayments was approved with one extension, with prior discussions at Texas SET.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation by Lucy Considine on PURA section 39.168, focusing on retail sales reporting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PWG addressing AV processes for 2025 due to no profile updates in 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Retail Market Training Task Force updates on instructor-led training sessions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Texas AEP Transaction Group addressing gaps in testing with Texas SET version 5.0 and associated changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Texas Data Transport MarkeTrak System managing inadvertent gains, looking into process improvements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RMS strategic objectives are being reviewed for a vote, with input from RMTTF, Texas SET, and TDTMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next RMS meeting scheduled for May 13, adjusted to reduce conflict with ERCOT Innovation Summit.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f97f8f7f-3030-46b5-86e6-5327a9ac20aa">▶️</a>9 - ROS Report (Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/ROS_Update_to_TAC-42325.pdf">ROS_Update_to_TAC-42325.pdf</a> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=71dcc0b8-1650-4f84-980c-f020be75fd84">▶️</a>9.1 - 2025 ROS Strategic Objectives</h4> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/ROS-Strategic-Objectives---Approved-ROS-20250403%20pdf.pdf">ROS-Strategic-Objectives---Approved-ROS-20250403.pdf</a> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/ROS-Strategic-Objectives-Revised%20pdf.pdf">ROS-Strategic-Objectives-Revised.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the ROS Strategic Objectives as revised by TAC added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Revisions were made to the ROS strategic objectives to allow them to remain relevant for multiple years without annual reviews.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A redline version of the strategic objectives requires TAC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Updates on recent ROS actions included the approval of NOGRR275 with revisions and the need for IA approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on load shedding calculation in real-time initiated by Golden Spread and progress on NPRR1238, which is seen as a replacement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">TAC is asked to consider NPRR1238 as resolving the load shedding action item at the ROS level.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about the timing of NPRR1238 approval and its potential conflict with pending legislative actions (Senate Bill 6).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ongoing monitoring of the legislative session to decide on the timeline for NPRR1238 approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus to leave NPRR1238 on the TAC action item list until officially approved, despite completing ROS-related work.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Several participants express concerns about moving forward with NPRR1238 and its implications if Senate Bill 6 is not clarified.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation made to adjust the wording in the TAC action items to reflect the current status of NPRR1238 and indicate its completion at the ROS level.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=aa2c37dc-fac2-4d24-8755-602c8f9c6fc6">▶️</a>10 - WMS Report</h3> <a href="https://dash2.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2025/04/WMS-Report-to-TAC---April-23-2025%20pdf.pdf">WMS-Report-to-TAC---April-23-2025 pdf.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No voting action items for TAC at the current meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Second discussion on ADER phase three governing document.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Non-consensus items, particularly third party aggregation issue for NCLRs, were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Vistra presented a compromised proposal with red lines and received initial feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussion scheduled for April 17 at DSWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Voting on the governing document is expected on May 7 at WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentations from interested parties anticipated prior to the May 7 vote.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on behind the meter resources providing ancillary service initiated by Shams Siddiqi.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT noted the production of a pun white paper but no timeline provided for its release.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">High-level discussion on recent RUC activity with detailed analysis expected on May 5 at WMWG meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New TAC action items assigned, including review of price correction methodology and MDRPOC process improvements by WMWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Phase three governing document progress expected in the next meeting on May 7.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c2e255d6-c784-43a3-9cbb-84b49f249f45">▶️</a>11 - Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/TAC_CFSG_23Apr2025.pdf">TAC_CFSG_23Apr2025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting was held on April 17 and was brief and smooth.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed operational NPRRs: NPRR1214, NPRR1229, NPRR1238, NPRR1267, NPRR1271, NPRR1275, and NPRR1276 with no credit impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market-wide average total potential exposure remained flat at $1.84 billion in March 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Slight decrease in both real-time prices and forward adjustment factors in March.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Average discretionary collateral decreased from $4.53 billion in February to $4.1 billion in March with no unusual collateral calls.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Types of available credits: surety bonds, letters of credit, cash, TPE, and max TPE.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review of collateral usage and banking exposure based on letters of credit by entity or bank.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next meeting scheduled for May 19 with a potential discussion on CRR exposures and credit calculations by DC Energy.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c12fdae2-a1af-4356-b22b-e3519cc47a7a">▶️</a>12 - Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report (Possible Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/LLI%20Queue%20Status%20Update%20-%202025-4.pdf">LLI Queue Status Update - 2025-4.pdf</a>   <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/LFLTF%20Charter%20Revisions_LLWG_DRAFT.pdf">LFLTF Charter Revisions_LLWG_DRAFT.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Rearrangement of the agenda to align large load interconnection status update with other items.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=7baae16a-a022-4a89-ad1f-53d8b500e053">▶️</a>12.1 - Large Load Working Group (LLWG) Charter</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to sunset the LFLTF and approve the LLWG Charter as revised by TAC added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The Large Load Task Force is suggested to be formally established as a working group due to ongoing activities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The LLWG charter has been updated and needs approval; operations will be a focus.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Leadership nominations for LLWG are expected by the next meeting, potentially scheduled for mid-May.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion about capitalizing "large loads" in documents to align with a board-approved definition.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Agreement to proceed with the capitalized term despite pending PUC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus to sunset the task force and approve the LLWG charter to be reported to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the pronunciation of the LLWG acronym, with various suggestions but no resolution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Next LLWG meeting tentatively scheduled for May 16, with a focus on logistics and agenda transparency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Potential need for individual meetings with large data centers due to private information concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The charter is included on the combo ballot, and the task force will be sun-setted.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=2cb28d0a-9fd7-4cde-879c-95b0b42fde7d">▶️</a>12.2 - Large Load Interconnection Status Update</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">25,419 MW net increase in large load queue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Projects categorized into no studies submitted, under ERCOT review, approved to energize, and observed energized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">6,779 MWs approved to energize, 3,338 reside in West load zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">April observed non-simultaneous peak consumption at 3,691 MWs, simultaneous peak at 3,352 MWs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Projects classified by size: 75-250 MW, 250-500 MW, 500-1000 MW, 1000+ MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requests for data breakdown by year and in-service date raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on ERCOT's discounting methodology for load forecasts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns regarding project transition from approved to energize but not operational due to customer or construction delays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether ERCOT denies interconnection requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of PGRR115 and NPRR1234 impacting load submissions and queue dynamics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for more detailed information on project ramps and actual timelines highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Under ERCOT review: 20 GW already approved, and plans for queue cleanup post PGRR115 implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential removal of non-responsive projects similar to generation interconnection queue management.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions centered around future projections, interconnection request flexibility, and ERCOT review timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Overall discussion showcased the complexity of managing and forecasting large load interconnection effectively.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5b84bab2-63ef-456b-904d-010268af04eb">▶️</a>13 - RTC+B Task Force Report</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/13_RTCBTF_TAC_Update_04232025.pdf">13_RTCBTF_TAC_Update_04232025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation included 10 slides covering a variety of updates, including NPRRs, market readiness, and a new concept of a 'parking-deck” for unresolved issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three NPRRs were approved recently, focusing on AS proxy offers, demand curves, and regulation services, which are being sent to the commission for final approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to start market trials on May 5, with most handbooks completed except those for LFC test and day-ahead market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing discussions on state of charge NPRR, with goals to finalize protocols for June board meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Efforts to centralize training materials and market trials resources on the RTCBTF website for easy access.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Expecting to add more training videos and resources to aid stakeholders in preparation for market trials.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Resource constraints anticipated as the focus shifts towards implementation of RTC+B, with a plan to leverage other groups like WMS for ongoing parking lot items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentations and training sessions have been ongoing to engage operators and staff about the upcoming changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Settlement changes were highlighted, with requests to provide early previews to allow for timely adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The possibility of sunsetting the task force post-go-live was discussed, with plans to transition ongoing items to other suitable forums.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions around resource limitations were emphasized to ensure a successful implementation phase.</li> </ul> <h3>Next Steps</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">File state of charge NPRR soon for voting in May PRS and TAC meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Address parking lot items in WMS or possibly other suitable forums.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Continue centralizing training and information resources on the RTCBTF website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monitor and manage resource allocation carefully during the implementation phase.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f7bee3d1-3627-4e99-a975-35035d378da8">▶️</a>14 - ERCOT Reports - 12:15 p.m.</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=a05e9eb0-f76d-4b5b-acb4-c5aea06421f1">▶️</a>14.1 - Outage Coordination Outage Capacity Calculation and Process Update (Possible Vote)</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/TAC_ERCOT_Outage%20Coordination%20Update_April_2025.pdf">TAC_ERCOT_Outage Coordination Update_April_2025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fred Huang from ERCOT presented a high-level overview of 2023 and 2024 outage performance and updates on risk-based assessment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion focused on accommodating load growth and integrating new flexible demand response to address outage capacity challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is an emphasis on maintaining a balance between having sufficient generation to meet demand and providing adequate outage windows for maintenance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A MDRPOC (Maximum Daily Resource Plan Outage Capacity) evaluation showed sufficient windows for outages in 2023, with similar plans for 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Considerations for energy storage contributions were highlighted with planned assessments up to 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The risk-based approach aims to maintain a selected risk level and adjust the MDRPOC accordingly, with regular updates to stakeholders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the ability to manage outages effectively given the sharp increase in demand and shared resource constraints.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders expressed the need for re-evaluating the methodology to better accommodate planned outages, encouraging more flexible planning rather than deferring outages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans were discussed for potentially adopting a new methodology after stakeholder feedback and comment periods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMWG meeting has been set up for further discussion with ERCOT ready to answer questions and consider suggestions.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f9408541-2927-41e7-89ab-06fe875ba718">▶️</a>14.2 - ERCOT FFSS Reporting</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/2024-2025-firm-fuel-supply-service-report(updated).pdf">2024-2025-firm-fuel-supply-service-report(updated).pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Overview of Deployment</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ryan King presented the Firm Fuel Supply Service deployment report for the 2425 obligation period.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussed key events leading to the recent deployment in February, including cold weather and gas supply restrictions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Deployment started shortly after noon on February 19 and ended on noon February 21.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Issues and Observations</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some resources moved to alternative fuel sources due to gas supply restrictions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Deployment faced issues such as underperformance and instances where HSL was not at the required levels.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A particular performance obligation was not fully achieved.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Price and System Conditions</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">During deployment, a modest price adder of 25¢ was noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Solid blue line on a graph showed online ORDC reserves during the event.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Performance Concerns</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">One FFSSR failed to come online due to mechanical issues unrelated to fuel.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Two FFSRs did not maintain HSL above 95% due to fuel oil pressure issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT is investigating through RFIs to better understand these problems.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Other Observations</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Issues noted during January watch periods, including unavailability of resources for several hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Settlement treatment for these incidents is under review.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Regulatory Updates</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR updates discussed, including NPRR1251 regarding cost recovery and NPRR1281 which are under consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No fuel restocking requests during the obligation period.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Topic: Q&A</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bryan Sams raised questions about failure rates and performance standards of fuel supply resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ryan King acknowledged the imperfection in resources depending on fuel oil.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=8d4aa80b-cbf3-49e5-b421-572f73d03d26">▶️</a>14.3 - Segment Membership Update</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katherine Gross from ERCOT Legal discussed ongoing updates to the bylaws related to technology and segment definitions since September.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A workshop was held in February, with proposed red lines due in March and responses due by April 18.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No responses were received to any of the three versions of red lines submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katherine suggested no additional workshops are needed unless requested.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Work is ongoing to create a consolidated version of the red lines for discussion at the HRNG committee on June 23.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The lack of opposition strongly indicates the proposed changes might be incorporated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katherine plans to provide another update at the May TAC meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion and voting timeline: Discussion in June, vote in September.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed changes include amendments to the industrial consumer segment, definition adjustments for transmission and distribution utilities, and formalizing the splitting of the generator segment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ned Bonskowksi inquired about any additional information or questions from the board, with Katherine suggesting attendance at the June discussion as a resource if questions arise.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=2e078334-e3db-42a0-a307-aa4627ee4b86">▶️</a>14.4 - Long-term Load Forecast Update</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/Long-term%20Load%20Forecast%20TAC.pdf">Long-term Load Forecast TAC.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Waterfall Methodology Discussion on how to read the forecast, annual energy relationships, and changes. Review of methodologies and the outage planning forecast. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Forecast Components Forecast includes base economic forecast, EV forecast, large flexible load, existing crypto sites, and reduction for PV. Additional columns for TDSP provided and ERCOT adjusted figures. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Annual Energy Relationship Expectation of change in the relationship between annual energy and peak demand, with peak demand decreasing relative to energy usage due to demand responses and price influences. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Load Forecast Projections Comparison between last year's forecast and current projections for 2030 and 2031. Significant increase in projected numbers due to factors such as data centers, offshore contracts, hydrogen, and industrial loads. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Forecasting Methodologies Used a 49.8% factor based on non-coincidental peak load observations from existing data centers contrasted with their requests. Includes adjustments for officer letters based on historical performance data, reduced to 55.4% of request. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Outage Planning Introduction of a 90th percentile forecast for outage studies based on interconnection queue data. Adjusts methodology from contract-based to queue-based for the initial 180 days before reverting back. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Transparency and Availability ERCOT aims for transparency, providing detailed forecasts, breakdowns, and historical load comparisons online. Open to queries and stakeholder input. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Historic Legislation Reference Clarification on the origin of the planning requirement, originally from SB1281, and a reminder not to confuse it with recent HB5066. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Methodology & Accuracy Discussion on premises forecast method accuracy, the potential for neural network approaches, and iteration on the 90th percentile forecast for outages. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder Inputs:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Oncor's concerns about geographic application of adjustments and call for future consistency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Inquiries regarding the frequency of forecast revisions and the possibility of more frequent updates.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional Use Cases Intentions for the load forecast include studies like CDR, RTP, and resource outage scheduling with added flexibility for planning and adjustments. </li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=1d281feb-403c-4d0d-aac6-8fd23cf0cae3">▶️</a>14.5 - 2026 Ancillary Services Methodology Plan Discussion</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/2026_AS_Methodology_kickoff_tac_042325.pdf">2026_AS_Methodology_kickoff_tac_042325.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting was primarily a kickoff discussion for the 2026 Ancillary Services (AS) Methodology Plan, aiming to align participants and provide guidance for upcoming months.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The focus is on moving to a probabilistic AS methodology for 2026, evaluating inputs beyond those currently considered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two workshops are planned: the first to discuss the shift to a probabilistic methodology, and the second to discuss outputs and gather feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The goal is to achieve board approval by September 23, with PUC approval following.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is an intention to shift to a dynamic real-time calculation for 2027, which will not impact the 2026 methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The workshops will address concerns related to load forecasts and historical data usage, emphasizing that the long-term load forecast is not a direct input variable.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions about dynamic procurement of ancillary services, relevant for 2027, are touched upon to indicate future directions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The move to a probabilistic model is recognized as a significant, complex undertaking by ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders are encouraged to participate actively in workshops and working groups, especially given the changes due to SB3 legislation.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=1830bef8-ffe2-4348-b1a1-ca6192f38114">▶️</a>14.6 - Oncor Tredway 138-kV Switch and Expanse to Tredway 138-kV 2nd Circuit Regional Planning Group Project (Possible Vote)</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/Oncor%20Tredway%20138-kV%20Switch%20and%20Expanse%20to%20Tredway%20138-kV%202nd%20Circuit%20Project_EIR_TAC_April_2025_V2.pdf">Oncor Tredway 138-kV Switch and Expanse to Tredway 138-kV 2nd Circuit Project_EIR_TAC_April_2025_V2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse the Oncor Tredway RPG Project – Option 1 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Presentation of the Oncor project aimed at addressing reliability issues in the Far West weather zones.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Project is classified as a tier one project due to its estimated cost of $119,000,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No CCN is required for the project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Aim is to resolve thermal and voltage violations under various contingencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Five options were considered; three options were shortlisted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Option one was recommended for addressing reliability violations, long-term load growth, and other sensitivities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No SSR impact was identified for option one in the study region for existing or planned generation resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Congestion analysis and generation/load scaling did not identify additional system congestions or impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation to endorse option one to address reliability needs in the forecast weather zone.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Estimated in-service date is December 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Major components include constructing a new Treadway Station, upgrading existing circuit lines, and adding shunt capacitors to support voltage.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3>15 - Other Business - 1:30 p.m.</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=a1c6d269-57ed-4a5f-9062-548168bc9a5b">▶️</a>15.1 - ERCOT Board/Stakeholder Engagement Discussion</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/Board%20Stakeholder%20Engagement%20Update%20(4.23%20TAC).pdf">Board Stakeholder Engagement Update (4.23 TAC).pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting involved discussions on stakeholder presentations to the board starting in June.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Target timing for presentations: 15 minutes per segment, 15 minutes for questions, totaling 60 minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Framework developed with board leadership, focusing on transmission planning in June.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder segments include industrial consumer, investor-owned utility, and independent generator.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Principles focus on insight over advocacy with a structured format for consistency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants will receive questions in advance of the presentations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board directors to be polled prior to presentations for feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Future feedback and progress updates expected before September.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps include working with TAC leadership and presenters to prepare.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=8547c0a8-45b3-481c-a322-4377e4d40e4d">▶️</a>15.2 - 2026 Block Calendar</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/04/2026%20Draft%20Block%20Meeting%20Schedule.pdf">2026 Draft Block Meeting Schedule.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board meetings for 2026 have already been approved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC approval is needed for their meetings before presenting to subcommittees.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current structure includes five board meetings and nine TAC meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback notes front-loading of meetings from January to May, suggesting a potential redistribution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of adding more TAC meetings in the middle or end of the year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on placeholders for TAC meetings in June and September.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ned Bonskowski agrees with the current scheduling allowing flexibility for rescheduling or canceling.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Finalization of 2026 schedule deferred to allow more review and input.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">May TAC planned for next month virtually, coinciding with Memorial Day for travel convenience.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=11602012-f3db-4994-a305-e04b9de62c33">▶️</a>15.3 - Action Items List Review</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for adding a numbering column to action items for better reference in future meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about rewording an action item related to curtailable load shedding methodologies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confusion over the correct terminology regarding load shedding; clarification made to focus on incorporating curtailable load in shedding methodologies rather than shedding itself.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Wittmeyer commented on potential confusion with wording but agreed it's understood internally.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to use Bob's suggested wording for the action item and confirmation of consensus.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several action items, including charter review and annual settlement trigger, were marked complete or candidates for removal due to completion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Blake Holt inquired about an action item for AORDC improvements, confirming it's not formally documented yet. Plan to integrate into Subcommittee discussions instead of task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement to continue monthly reviews of action items for ongoing efficiency.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c211a03f-f1ce-4dcd-b12f-2e54aefc4ce1">▶️</a>15.4 - Market Design Framework Workshop</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Market Design Framework Workshop will be held after the TAC meeting. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Watch <a href="/pages/calendar/meeting/smart-agenda/?event_id=4193">here</a>, read the summary <a href="/news/articles/?id=11780">here</a>.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f25a3433-8644-4bf4-ba18-15131c8bc5d1">▶️</a>16 - Combo Ballot (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the combo ballot as presented carries unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/04222025ComboBallotItems.png" /></div> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/04/04222025ComboBallot.png" /></div> /> />   <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=435eb3e4-44bf-4015-ac43-76824f91bdc5">▶️</a>17 - Adjourn - 2:00 p.m.</h3>