Frame

Meeting Summary - 09/24/24 PLWG Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
09/25/2024

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/PLWG%2009242024%20HERO.png" alt="" width="702" height="368" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3110e2c8-b4da-43c8-abc6-27169437a39b">1</a> - Antitrust Admonition - Chair</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=02d3d448-0dba-4359-9aa8-c5581014d421">2</a> - Agenda Review - Chair</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9480ebb3-50b0-4d7b-bd12-690782e91108">3</a> - Review of PLWG Meeting Minutes - Aug 13 - Chair</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No comments were received on the draft minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Minutes were deemed final and posted on the PLWG event page.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=eef6bf5d-3512-4ba6-838e-19dcf6aa3053">4</a> - General updates - Chair</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e465a28c-eed3-4be2-b195-d37a81e24403">4.1</a> - At its Sept 9 meeting, ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 - related to NPRR1180 - Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses - ERCOT’s Aug 28 comments - after desktop edits.</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS voted to endorse PGRR107 related to NPRR1180.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PGRR107 pertains to the inclusion of forecasted load in planning analyses after desktop edits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An action item was assigned to review and revise the planning guide regarding capital 'L' and small 'l' load terminology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes made around the load terminology resulted in desktop edits and were endorsed by ROS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The planning guide will be reviewed as a broader document to reflect changes in load terminology.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6612a837-602f-4ea0-b171-12563e1f9b45">4.2</a> - 2025 PLWG meetings, RPG/PLWG joint meetings or standalone.</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether PLWG meetings should continue to be held jointly with RPG or as standalone meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern over lengthy agendas for both RPG and PLWG, raising the question of adequate time allocation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Benefits of joint meetings include travel efficiency, allowing attendees to address both meetings in one trip.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions for joint meetings to be scheduled on adjacent days (day before or day after) to accommodate overruns and ensure adequate discussion time.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Challenge noted in scheduling due to room availability; potential fallback to WebEx for split meetings deemed less optimal for travel purposes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgement that predicting the length and scheduling of ERCOT meetings is difficult, thus complicating planning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of future meeting structure adjustments due to changing and potentially lengthier meeting times.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possibility of canceling and rescheduling meetings based on agenda size to manage travel and accommodation more effectively.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reminder about 2025 PLWG leadership opportunities with discussions and nominations starting around November, transitioning in February.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=142acb1e-d3e1-489e-b8b2-5f4d78e1d4b5">5</a> - PGRR115 related to NPRR1234 – Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8fc8b09c-608a-4a82-8c4d-d8f545772306">5.1</a> - CenterPoint Energy comments 08/29/24</h3> Jim Lee from CenterPoint Energy discussed comments filed in late August on PGRR115. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Key focus on clarifying the load commissioning plan: definition, responsibilities, contents, and updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Added definitions for "load facility" and "load point", capitalized throughout the document.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed separating generator interconnections (section 5.3.5) and large loads (new section 9.5).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarifications on data modeling responsibilities: TSP receives and passes data to ERCOT but not responsible for validation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Edits emphasize TSP responsibility for studies and decisions on study requirements due to familiarity with systems and large load relationships.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changed wording from "complete" to "proposed" for the load commissioning plan, recognizing it as a living document.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Extended timelines of large load interconnection study scoping processes to 10 days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Standardized terminology to "lead TSP" throughout the document.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarifications on responsibility for providing dynamic data for large loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted importance of including relevant large loads and their upgrades in steady state studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant discussion on co-located facilities and the need for coordinated study process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognition of differing views between TSPs like Oncor and CenterPoint on specific edits (e.g., breaker requirements).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions raised for ERCOT regarding clarity and specifics on certain sections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monica and other members raised points about the need for clarity on resource entity involvement in cases of co-located loads and generation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT expressed concern over making stability studies discretionary and indicated plans for further comment and discussion.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=b728ef0c-2fb6-41bf-b83d-6fabd1d1efb3">5.2</a> - Oncor comments 09/09/24</h3> Martha Henson from Oncor presented comments on the PGRR document. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Oncor categorized comments into two buckets: modifications through red lines and items seeking more information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed edits to Quarterly Stability Assessment (QSA) language for loads, specifically clarifying responsibility for providing a dynamic load model.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggested ERCOT review the model early in the process to confirm appropriateness for the QSA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on separating load QSA provisions to streamline approach for loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request to add distribution providers in the LLIS process to ensure specific mention.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed to strike paragraph C in section 9.2.1, citing inconsistencies with paragraph B regarding capacity increases and existing load facilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Edits to 9.2.2 to clarify distinctions in LCP preliminary and final processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">9.2.3 clarifies that ILLE is responsible for providing dynamic load model to TSP, and for notifying TSP if the model is updated by the customer.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Opposed ERCOT’s broad prohibition on customer demand increases post-LLIS process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Added small language changes in 9.3.2-9.5 covering kick-off meetings, certification of distribution providers, study case projects, interconnection agreements, and financial security.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Insistence that load commissioning plans should be managed by TSP and follow LCP without extra back-and-forth with ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requests for more clarity and possible templates from ERCOT for LCPs and LLIS entry.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion ensued on whether temporary interconnections via remotely operated switches will undergo comprehensive studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT emphasized necessity for POI changes to go through large load interconnection process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about provisions for remotely operated interruption devices and potential safety issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for ERCOT to further clarify and align planning guide language, taking into context how 'large load' is defined and applied across different sections.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e5cadcff-eaa3-46a9-90ba-5bab326c76f7">6</a> - PGRR117 – Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Change PLWG - 30 min PGRR117</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Resiliency assessment and criteria reflect PUC rule change, second presentation at PLWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments received from LCRA, discussed by Andrew in absence of Blake.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Wordsmithing changes to item one: change position of reliability/resiliency, 'must' to 'shall'.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarifications on resiliency assessment cases, inclusion of scaled RTP cases as discussed by Robert Golen of ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Contingency set clarification:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">P0, P1, and P2.1 as defined by NERC TPL-001.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Common tower outages as defined in ERCOT planning guide §4.1.1.1.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to strike power supply language in item B, deemed redundant and covered elsewhere.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Wordsmithing in section 4.1.2, strike unnecessary phrases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Add duration consideration for load loss impact as suggested by CenterPoint, debate over its necessity and emphasis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification required on 'load loss' terminology to align with planning guide language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to keep 'impact' broad to incorporate various factors without singling out duration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT plans to study more scenarios in future assessments based on stakeholder feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on preventing system instability under extreme weather conditions as part of resiliency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Risk of piecemeal studies was acknowledged, intention to cover more comprehensively in future assessments.</li> </ul> <h3>Questions Raised</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Impact of adding 'duration' in resiliency criteria, whether it should be considered separately or under 'impact'.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Necessity and placement of generation assumptions in item two versus item three.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on coincident vs. non-coincident load values for regional transmission plan study cases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Definition of 'load loss' vs. 'load shedding' and how to align terminology with current planning guides and protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preventing instability as part of resiliency criteria and its relationship with existing reliability and GTC criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Exact scope and criteria RMS will use to recommend resiliency projects.</li> </ul> <h3>Comments From Stakeholders</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns over adding duration raised by Laurie Block, supported by Mark Bruce and others.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">General preference for seeing comprehensive package including NPRR expected from ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need to ensure ERCOT guidelines align with both legislative requirements and existing planning guides.</li> </ul> <h3>Responses From ERCOT</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT acknowledged ongoing internal discussions and intentions to revise language for clarity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commitment to incorporate various feedback and re-evaluate positioning of generation assumptions and load values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Assurance of considering broader spectrum of factors under the term 'impact'.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Working towards aligning terminologies used in different documents and guidelines.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2c02dc82-9cb8-4ca0-93db-505a2b8e7b3a">7</a> - NPRR1247 – Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects</h2> <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/20/draft-congestion-cost-savings-test-evaluation-guideline-.pdf">Draft Congestion Cost Savings Test Evaluation Guideline</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Laurie Block raised a question about ERCOT's response to TIEC's comments on timeline consistency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ping Yang explained ERCOT's approach to studying-years, up to six years out due to uncertainties in the future.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Yang clarified that ERCOT compares annual savings with annual revenue requirements for projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Yang confirmed that ERCOT is open to adding clarifications to address stakeholders' concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dylan Preas brought up reviewing the NPRR1247 language and suggested having ERCOT’s documents for reference.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Constance McDaniels Wyman, ETT & APSC,  expressed support for NPRR1247 but noted potentially confusing language and suggested improvements so that the CCS components don't appear to point back to the PCS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT mentioned the development of a white paper to add transparency to the congestion cost savings test process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mark Bruce sought clarification on the current process and a historical review of ERCOT's application of specific cost-benefit considerations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder questions focused on details related to economic benefit calculations, inflation factors, and price responsive loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the legal binding nature of the white paper and whether it needs to be referenced in protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Matt Arth from ERCOT explained that the white paper adds clarity but does not have the same legal binding as protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on potentially including the white paper by reference in NPRR for future updates.</li> </ul> Next Steps: The discussion will be tabled for the next meeting until ROS formally assigns it to the PLWG (Planning Working Group) for further discussion. <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=c4132cd2-fa41-4c11-9075-38dff7f0c79a">8</a> - NERC Topics Roundtable - future topics</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=222ec65c-6e4b-4e3e-a490-240b097c9901">8.1</a> - CIP-014-4 - Physical Security - topic pending new draft</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">New draft version (Draft 2) of CIP-014-4 was posted on NERC Project 2023-06.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The draft is open for comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An industry webinar is scheduled for October 17 to discuss proposed changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The comment window is a 45-day period, likely closing in the first week of November.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Transmission planners are encouraged to review the draft and attend the webinar.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=17ee7f81-3414-472a-bb54-a59251ef37a2">8.2</a> - TPL-008 - Transmission System Planning Performance Requirements for Extreme Temperature Events</h3> The discussion centered around TPL-008, concerning extreme weather events and transmission planning. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sun wook, ERCOT, mentioned that two drafts have been developed so far, with the team holding daily virtual meetings to address comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A new version of TPL-008 is expected to be issued in early October, followed by a 15-day comment period.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Details on tested contingencies remain confidential but the changes aim to address industry feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The revision is significant for transmission planners and will require their attention.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=100ba08b-4ea4-47d2-9f66-3fa43f6a3f85">9</a> - Review Open Action Items Chair</h2> <h4>Key Discussion Points:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Identification that some documents (including those posted online) lacked listed action items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Open action item assigned to PLWG by ROS to review the use of load in the planning guide.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on addressing inconsistencies in the use of certain terms (e.g., large load versus little load).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT hasn't committed to taking the lead on addressing these inconsistencies yet.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposition to address inconsistencies as they come up during revisions rather than making a blanket revision.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need for internal discussions within ERCOT regarding the best approach to handle the inconsistencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether PLWG should start the revision request process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification sought on whether a working group can sponsor a revision request without a stakeholder representative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commitment to report back to ROS after gathering more information.</li> </ul> <h4>Next Steps:</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussions within ERCOT to determine the best approach for addressing inconsistencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Erin to research and provide more information on the process for sponsoring a revision request.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Report back to ROS with findings and potential plans.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=b5b7a999-672b-4e90-bcfe-5d95e786af71">10</a> - Other business</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A reminder was issued to submit the ROS, PLWG update by Thursday.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A presentation will be prepared despite not having full input from the working group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion emphasized giving ROS members sufficient time to review the presentation before the ROS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A request was made for a list of WebEx participants due to people frequently coming in and out.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Erin acknowledged the request for the participant list and agreed to follow up.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market services may assist in providing the requested list of WebEx attendees.</li> </ul> <h2>11 - Adjourn</h2>