Frame

Meeting Summary - 09/06/24 LFLTF Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
09/06/2024

<img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/LFLTF%20Sept%20Hero.png" width="571" height="322" /> <a href="/sharing/?token=2304da63-e37b-4c5d-b3f7-aaa26f2b9c7c">1 </a>- Antitrust Admonition - Bill Blevins <a href="/sharing/?token=bcc5e54f-79eb-4b1d-a910-de24968f2dcb">2 </a>- Large Load Queue Update - ERCOT Staff <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Julie Stittman, supervisor of the large load integration team, presented the <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/05/LLI%2520Queue%2520Status%2520Update%2520-%25202024-9-6.pdf">large load interconnection status update.</a></li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Over the past twelve months, the combination of new standalone and co-located projects, as well as several project cancellations, has increased the total queue capacity by 4439 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current Large Load Interconnection Queue broken into 4 categories</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Approved to energize</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Planning studies approved</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Under ERCOT review</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No studies submitted</li> </ul> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approved to energize:1570 MW approved over the past year; total of 5496 MW currently approved, with 2854 MW in load zone west and 2642 MW in other zones.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The breakdown of approved projects: 4421 MW standalone and 1075 MW co-located.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Observed non-simultaneous peak consumption is 3282 MW; simultaneous peak consumption is 2815 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether the load is flexible or not: currently no such categorization in the process, dependent on future commission projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">By 2028, ERCOT has effectively approved a little over 14 gigawatts for large loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on load ramps and submission requests: both the load ramp and potential transmission upgrades are considered.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=e2c18652-f45c-4a4e-8365-90ee5b2d4c4a">3 </a>- NPRR1238 Discussion - ERCOT Staff <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1238, focused on how the language might adjust load shed percentages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on concerns and misunderstandings about NPRR1238 raised by stakeholders, especially regarding its impact on NOIE areas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation of the intent behind NPRR1238: to remove interruptible loads from load shed tables and calculate requirements based on actual firm loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's ongoing efforts to develop scenarios based on NPRR1238 language and its load shed impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder concerns about sequencing NPRR1238 with NPRR1234 due to dependencies and the need to move forward collectively.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on using NPRR1238 during transmission emergencies and its limitations, with suggested clarifications in the language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of moving NPRR1238 along with NPRR1234 due to interconnect limitations and urgency emphasized by stakeholders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT working to provide comments about timeline with NPRR 1234 and to bring a scenario for discussion to the OWG surrounding load shed percentages</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Methodologies for calculating load shed percentages explained, including considerations of changing load ratios over time.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval of NPRR expected around Q1 of next year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Manual nature of load shed processes and preference for system-based operations over manual management highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders' input sought on the desired length of time for exiting the VECL program and related operational considerations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment that changes in load dynamics and flexible loads over time will necessitate ongoing adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus on creating a path for transitioning between different load categories, with considerations for transmission studies, interconnection agreements, and system updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Estimated minimum six-month timeline for implementing major changes in load registrations and categories stressed for reliability reasons.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=fac4ac05-ca86-4fdd-91b8-e98dc0be126a">4 </a>- Maximum Size of Single Large Load Connection – Discussion of Revised Concept - ERCOT Staff <h3>Key Topics Discussed:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from previous meeting and internal discussions led to a revised approach to large load connections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concept to simplify large load interconnection with a focus on a 1000 MW limit at a single point.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to file a PGRR (Protocol Revision Requests) and update planning criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential need for updated studies to validate the 1000 MW limit, based on Southern Cross project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Operation challenges in maintaining grid stability with large load connections.</li> </ul> <h3>Major Decisions Made:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In comments to PGRR115, a new paragraph will limit large load interconnection at a single point to 1000 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A separate PGRR will establish that no more than 1000 MW can be lost for any single contingency in a planning study.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT will commit to updating studies before final approval of these changes to ensure reliability.</li> </ul> <h3>Questions and Concerns Raised:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on the term 'single point of interconnect' there are ongoing discussions on using either POI or POIB.whether POI or another definition.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Management of faults in ring bus or breaker schemes; distinction between voltage ride-through and contingency scenarios.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Modeling requirements for stability studies and potential updates for better load model accuracy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possibility of grandfathering existing points of interconnection versus requiring compliance with new criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Operational feasibility and potential design challenges if loads exceed the 1000 MW threshold, particularly concerning process interconnections.</li> </ul> <h3>Follow-up Actions Planned:</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT to work on drafting and filing comments for PGRR115 and a separate PGRR for a new planning criterion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT to conduct updated studies to validate or adjust the 1000 MW limit based on current data and scenarios.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussions and engagement anticipated with stakeholders to refine and finalize these plans.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=7c74c212-aa21-4e1e-8c56-5a28feaf63d2">5 </a>- Schedule of Future Meetings - Bill Blevins/Bob Wittmeyer <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: Bill Blevins</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">The task force hasn't met initial expectations such as developing ways for flexible loads to participate in ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">After completing NPRR134, PGRR115, and NPRR1238, it may be time to hibernate the task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Future issues to be presented by the legislature by next June are anticipated.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: Martha Henson</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Clarification requested on the handling of ERCOT NPRR1234.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Anticipated that future comments on NPRR1234 will be discussed at ROS.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: (unknown)</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Suggests hibernating after the current meeting unless specific issues arise, like interconnection discussions.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: Clayton Stice</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Discussion on managing transition between CLR and non CLR within markets area.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Recommendation to shift this discussion to relevant markets forums like WMS or WMWG.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants: Group Discussion (General)</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Question on nodal versus non-nodal status raised, with emphasis on consistent nodal load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Some loads seek to switch based on market conditions, suggesting consistent nodal status to prevent such shifts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Attempts to expand nodal pricing to all large loads were discussed but lacked support.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: Lee Bracher</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Bitcoin mining and large load participation awareness in other forums suggested.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Broadly supportive for nodal pricing. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Brought up the need to address interconnection queue and PFR requirements for CLRs.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants: Agee Springer</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Clarified that issues needing NPRR1188 is separate from PFR requirements for CLRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Discussed timelines for NPRR1188 and related actions.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participant: Michael Jewell (Priority Power)</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Provided updates on timelines for NPRR1244 related to NOGRR263, at PRS next week.</li> </ul> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Queue updates to continue at WMS unless a more public reporting method is established.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants: Group Discussion on Next Steps</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Cancellation of some scheduled LFL meetings anticipated unless specific issues arise.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Request to TAC for guidance on the best venue for queue updates.</li> </ul> </ul> </ul> Meeting Adjourned.