Frame

Meeting Summary - 01/15/2025 PRS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
01/16/2025

<h2><img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-Hero.png" width="808" height="605" /></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=6ba330c2-b3bd-460f-ba98-fb930672938d">▶️</a> 1 - Antitrust Admonition</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=76b97dde-7881-45e9-b98c-80218fd66031">▶️</a> 2 - PRS Leadership Election Vote ERCOT Staff.</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Blakey nominated Diana Coleman for PRS chair; she accepted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No other nominations for PRS chair; Diana Coleman elected by acclamation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jim Lee nominated Andy Nguyen for PRS vice chair; he accepted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No other nominations for PRS vice chair; Andy Nguyen elected.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=9433ff9d-e7cb-414e-84dd-5f0654c18631">▶️</a> 3 - Approval of Minutes Vote PRS Chair</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e220a681-407e-412c-8499-a296b13aa3f3">▶️</a> 3.1 - December 12, 2024</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">December 12, 2024 PRS meeting minutes added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e220a681-407e-412c-8499-a296b13aa3f3">▶️</a> 4 - TAC Update PRS Chair</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC did not meet in December, no update available.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2217f3ad-35e0-45d9-9df1-d9563393eb83">▶️</a> 5 - Project Update Troy Anderson</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/01/prs_january_2025_project_update.pdf">prs_january_2025_project_update.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Five revision requests went live in December, with ongoing projects flagged as "in flight".</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Notable discussions included the CDR live implementation updates and upcoming reports on net metering requirements for January and March.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Kevin Hanson inquired about delays related to the CDR, concluding it's not due to system changes but rather internal discussions on load forecasts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suzi McClellan questioned the availability of specific information relating to NPRR945, expected by January 31st.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The report contained progress updates on various projects, with completed tasks marked with checkmarks, and pending tasks scheduled for 2025, including RTC+B.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant changes include the prioritization and scheduling of various projects, with some deferred based on commission directions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The presentation covered additional FTE requirements for certain revision requests, focusing on resource allocation and project support. </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised regarding the timing and planning of hiring additional FTEs, linked to budget cycles and project timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting also addressed issues on technology discussions, reported project statuses, and stakeholder communications.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=5f0f78ea-fdbe-4ade-bc5a-3303d4a2f650">▶️</a> 6 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization Vote, * denotes no impact PRS Chair</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d31889d7-1544-416b-8613-98d7ec2aa7fd">▶️</a> 6.01 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process*</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 8/28/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1251 carries with one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation to approve the amended language from the December 5th WMS comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No associated cost with NPRR1251.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-NPRR1251Ballot.png" width="802" height="746" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=23eeb346-b3e4-4d4d-a82b-9b7f3d6b1005">▶️</a> 6.02 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 1/14/25 Impact Analysis for NPRR1253 with a recommended priority of 2025 and rank of 4255 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal was tabled in December to allow ERCOT time to drop the Impact Analysis (IA).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised about the availability of data only to TDSP and QSEs, leaving some market participants without access.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The NPRR suggested making data available through both ICCP and the ERCOT API, but delivering through the API presented timing and delivery challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some existing data is available via the ERCOT dashboard, which is not as convenient for users needing real-time access.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Participants debated whether to amend the NPRR to make data available only through ICCP for the short term, recognizing that it would not cover all market participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The potential of having data available through web scraping from the ERCOT dashboard was considered as a workaround.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The IA has shown constraints in delivering a complete solution before the summer 2025 timeframe.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on whether the Energy Storage Resources dashboard provides instantaneous updates and how that compares to ICCP data updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were expressed about unequal access to data with a preference for a solution that doesn't provide an advantage based on data access speed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The prospect of moving NPRR1253 forward with desktop edits or recommending approval without edits to allow Market Participants another opportunity at TAC to address these issues was considered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some members suggested further reconsideration of a non-standard approach to publish the data on the ERCOT website due to pressing summer needs.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=851bf32a-515f-4cde-9314-5d4157d1d505">▶️</a> 6.03 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 10/21/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1257 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Last month, the proposal was endorsed or recommended for approval as submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ROS conducted a vote on NOGRR271, an associated revision request, which will be presented to TAC next week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Approval of NPRR1257 today would align its progress with NOGRR271 for simultaneous approval by TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The financial impact is less than $10,000 and is expected to be absorbed by the Operations and Maintenance budget.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There will be red-line changes to the AS methodology to incorporate the limit, which will also be presented to TAC.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=b74d2d01-e20e-4290-83b9-cc65651c3bd7">▶️</a> 6.04 - NPRR1259, Update Section 15 Level Response Language*</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 10/30/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1259 added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=367128bf-f89b-4451-8940-07e2351d5612">▶️</a> 6.05 - NPRR1260, Corrections for CLR Requirements Inadvertently Removed*</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 11/6/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1260 added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f812142b-b405-40a4-9e3f-8ac3b74b97fc">▶️</a> 6.06 - NPRR1261, Operational Flexibility for CRR Auction Transaction Limits*</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 11/13/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1261 added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e5885d61-589f-4cdd-9ff1-d8c9ea49dd41">▶️</a> 6.07 - SCR828, Increase the Number of Resource Certificates Permitted for an Email Domain in RIOO</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 12/12/24 PRS Report and 1/14/25 Impact Analysis for SCR828 with a recommended priority of 2025 and rank of 4550 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion included whether the proposal allows an unlimited number of certificates without affecting the cost.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It was confirmed that the proposed project would indeed allow unlimited certificates.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=d7583335-49c4-458f-aa6c-fbf281813179">▶️</a> 7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - PRS Chair</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=4d33d739-ec25-400b-ab88-78a1ae54c0bc">▶️</a> 7.02 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1070 discussed at WMS earlier in the month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments are currently being developed for NPRR1070.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of parallel NPRR1247</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1247 is currently in progress and will remain tabled. </li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5ab8bc3f-843b-4efb-b229-e364c30e3d71">▶️</a> 7.03 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion on NPRR1202 is currently in progress and will remain tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional conversations are ongoing at the WMWG.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e76533a2-3594-4123-ab6d-45bc3a505a5a">▶️</a> 7.04 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion on NPRR1214 is currently in progress and will remain tabled.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f77121a9-9512-47b7-8fc6-87794123e443">▶️</a> 7.05 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal already approved at WMS with ongoing conversations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT has given presentations on the process for submitting requests for dashboards by market participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing work on the proposal is acknowledged, and no changes have been finalized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mark Smith suggested moving NPRR1226 forward to TAC, but no consensus reached.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1226 remains tabled for the time being.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=fb7b832f-8762-42bc-be0b-c003d3c86456">▶️</a> 7.07 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NDSWG is currently reviewing NPRR1234.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT intends to provide future comments on this proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1234 remains tabled for the moment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS is expected to take up the proposal in February.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=497b89b8-c645-42ea-844d-6938c5f0f2a8">▶️</a> 7.08 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1235 continued at WMS, focusing on potential changes and feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT plans to collect feedback on NPRR1235 until January 10th and assess whether a new NPRR is necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SAWG will further discuss NPRR1235 on January 24th.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a810c264-c283-4f01-b725-4b2c0d139e1c">▶️</a> 7.09 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT may present information on NPRR1238 in February at the OWG meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Golden Spread has been in discussions with ERCOT to understand the comments about NPRR1238.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">More discussions are anticipated regarding these comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants are looking forward to feedback being relayed to ROS.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9e0ace1d-a0af-48d5-8f76-32c14db798d0">▶️</a> 7.10 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1241 as amended by the 12/3/24 Luminant comments carries with one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal was tabled back in August and referred to WMS, who endorsed it unanimously with amendments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Key query raised on excluding fuel-related outages and understanding types of non-fuel related outages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification sought on how excluding fuel-related outages affects the scope during a watch period.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion over why clawbacks occur when units are unavailable, and historical context provided.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT's effectiveness of past clawback practices questioned, potential impact on incentives discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Stakeholder concerns received on lowering incentives during crucial periods like the watch period.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Improvement noted where clawbacks would be proportional rather than extensive for minor unavailability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A suggestion made to review historical data to affirm clawback practices did not deter availability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Motion was made to approve NPRR1241 with latest amendments and stakeholders' comments noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Voting outcome shows a majority in favor with one individual abstention.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The agenda item was added to the comment ballot, and feedback was acknowledged by ERCOT representatives.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-NPRR1241Ballot.png" width="803" height="742" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a3e18385-ddcc-4b1f-aa58-2a999518679e">▶️</a> 7.11 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith requested to continue tabling NPRR1255 for further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Jupiter has been working with ERCOT on a framework regarding mitigation of ESRs, particularly focused on state of charge management.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Conversations with ERCOT and stakeholders are ongoing to address concerns before NPRR1255 is implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There's a lack of urgency as the implementation would not occur immediately; focus is on getting it right this year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about the implementation timeline and whether the mitigated offer cap would remain until NPRR1255 goes live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Current mitigation in place is the upper cap, which will stand until after RTC for NPRR1255 implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's annual review is expected to recommend that the current cap remains until NPRR1255 is live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussions and potential updates are planned for future meetings, with February mentioned as a possible update timeline.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=f004f186-b737-43cb-8fba-1e7d092ee4b3">▶️</a> 8 - Review of Revision Request Language Vote PRS Chair</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9c52318a-6ad3-4c10-9454-a013b826c27f">▶️</a> 8.1 - NPRR1263, Remove Accuracy Testing Requirements for CCVTs</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1263 and refer the issue to WMS was added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Tony Davis from WETT presented the proposal to reduce the testing burden.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal was being reviewed for the first time by PRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">John suggested the proposal should be reviewed by a group like the Meter Working Group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It was noted that the Meter Working Group is under WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The decision was made to table the proposal and refer it to WMS for further review by the Meter Working Group.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9c52318a-6ad3-4c10-9454-a013b826c27f">▶️</a> 8.2 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1264 and refer the issue to WMS carries unanimously.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1264 aims to modify a 25-year-old REC program to allow any generator to have certificates that can be traded voluntarily.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Certificates will include information like production time, fuel type, generator location, and other valuable attributes for trade by buyers and sellers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The program aims to assist in compliance with proposed federal and European standards, supporting corporate and other retail buyers in new transaction methods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Additional attributes proposed for the certificate include monthly and hourly production time, generator latitude and longitude that will be redacted for 60 days to protect confidentiality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The program is expected to support standards such as a hypothetical nuclear certificate, align with gas portfolio standards, and could track natural gas plant operations emissions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Several committees, including WMS, ROS, and RMS, are handling associated revision requests related to NPRR1264. However, the bulk of the discussion is expected at WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Motions were made to table NPRR1264 and refer the issue to WMS for further examination.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There is concern over the necessity and potential cost implications of the granular tracking proposed in NPRR1264.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-NPRR1264Ballot.png" width="807" height="745" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=b8326d66-aef8-4919-8155-bb44be1921c9">▶️</a> 8.3 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1265 and refer the issue to ROS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This involves gathering information from unregistered distributed generation owners as per House Bill 3390.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The goal is to understand smaller distributed generation's impacts on planning and modeling.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about language clarity and requirements for distributed generation (DG) owners.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The NPRR aims to include existing DG by allowing utilities to provide best effort information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT emphasizes aggregated reporting from distribution companies, not individual customer data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion about ride-through standards compliance and data collection challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">New DG entries must provide more detailed information compared to existing installations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on clarifying rules for parallel operation DG versus those disconnected with automatic switch.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill Clayton discussed House Bill 3390 placing registration responsibilities on DG owners.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Questions about modeling accuracy and infrastructure changes within utilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Potential amendments to language for DG thresholds to align with current operational scopes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Revisions in NPRR1265 could remove DSP and NOIE responsibilities for registering larger DG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification sought on amended criteria for different DG sizes: less than 1 megawatt and implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns that current rules about DG reporting might conflict with NPRR1265's intents.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus on referring NPRR1265 to further committee discussions at ROS to resolve  issues.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=963df6f2-8473-46ab-b910-69d822142734">▶️</a> 8.4 - NPRR1266, Opt-Out Status Held by a Transmission-Voltage Customer Cannot be Transferred</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1266 and refer the issue to RMS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Transmission voltage customers who opted out during the specified period submitted a form with their customer name and ESI ID; ERCOT compiled a list of such customers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The PUC clarified that opt-out status is non-transferable to new customers at the same location.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT needs a process to update the list when there is a customer name change.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">TDSPs will flag customer name changes and alert ERCOT, who will then update the list.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised about ERCOT's lack of verification and reliance on competitive retailers for information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on possibly delaying implementation to allow TDSPs time to set up systems.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Issues about the potential for negative financial impacts on customers due to incorrect name change information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT suggested the burden is on the customer to inform if they should retain opt-out status.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Debate on whether the issue should be addressed by ERCOT or through a PUC rulemaking process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT's current proposal associates name change with transfer, but the PUC hasn't defined what constitutes a transfer.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Examples discussed pointed out complexities such as mergers and legitimate business reasons for name changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The group leaned towards tabling the item for further discussion to avoid unintended consequences.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7dcb052c-a313-401f-9912-e6b9a93975c7">▶️</a> 8.5 - SCR829, API for the NDCRC Application</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of SCR829 as submitted added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The SCR829 is a system change request for ERCOT to develop an API for the net dependable capacity capability and reactive capability application.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Joint Sponsors: Constellation, Tenaska Energy, and LCRA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The API would reduce manual work and decrease error opportunities in the NDCRC application.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT had decided to include all generation unit testing requirements in the NDCRC, increasing manual data entry.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Benefits of the API: Enable seamless communication, streamline data processes, and improve accuracy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Urgency for ERCOT to develop this API after completing the RTC+B project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Acknowledgement of ERCOT's awareness and support for the initiative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion around including SCR829 in the combo ballot. Strong support noted for combination.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns about potential cost of implementation and need for impact analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on lessons learned in software rollout for ERCOT systems interfacing with QSEs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasis on utilizing TWG for feedback before major technology changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recognition of ERCOT's prior progress and its decision to defer the API work due to other priorities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Intent to continue collaboration and improve processes for future system changes.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8638b8f8-27c2-47f6-b5a4-6ef95df5b8b5">▶️</a> 8.6 - SCR830, Expose Limited API Endpoints Using Machine-to-Machine Authentication</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of SCR830 as submitted added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">AEP proposes the system change request SCR830 to enable machine-to-machine authentication for limited API endpoints.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Current APIs exist but lack a mechanism for daemon application authentication.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The resolution aims to implement an authentication flow to facilitate automation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PRS committee considers whether to table or approve the proposal for further assessment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about not knowing the implementation costs if tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the need for an Impact Assessment (IA) to understand the cost implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Upon approval, an IA would be initiated to determine costs, enabling further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">AEP has not consulted any working group prior to submission, but the solution fits AEP's needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No alternative solutions were proposed by ERCOT or AEP.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">General consensus to approve the proposal to get IA for cost evaluation.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=58c4ad08-f415-4b36-a706-bc2bc22c292f">▶️</a> 9 - Other Business</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a3f9f4dc-e9ec-472c-9c8a-3906af17e162">▶️</a> 9.1 - 2025 PRS Goals</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The council is not ready to vote on the 2025 PRS goals yet.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is significant momentum and potential changes expected for these goals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A more in-depth discussion is planned for next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a suggestion to resurrect the table list and combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders were informed that the suggestion was heard and liked.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There are plans to iron out some details before implementing this suggestion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential reforms to the agenda list are being considered.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=8bda8d94-1e15-4557-98af-a8394136bca1">▶️</a> 10 - Combo Ballot - Vote - PRS Chair</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve combo ballot carries unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-ComboDetails.png" width="800" height="166" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/01/01-15-2025-PRS-CombinedResults.png" width="801" height="743" /> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=651b2393-fde7-427d-8a67-fa6bec3004f3">▶️</a> 11 - Adjourn</h2>