Frame

Meeting Summary - 03/26/2025 TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
03/27/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/03-26-2025-TAC-Hero.png" width="800" height="599" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=fd9ce25f-5b48-4769-8c3a-2ac97f58715f">▶️</a>1 - Antitrust Admonition</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=35fa2312-d76d-4347-9c43-0fcc0785559b">▶️</a>2 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=ca2d3dc3-e037-4d65-80fd-a2f2a66955de">▶️</a>2.1 - February 27, 2025</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the February 27, 2025 meeting minutes as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=80bca23b-38a2-4412-bd92-31ebcaa3f0a3">▶️</a>3 - Meeting Updates</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=17b9c392-2310-4402-9baa-66e1ce8bd406">▶️</a>3.1 - February 25th Special Board Meeting</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The February 25th special board meeting took place before the last TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were no revision requests for this meeting.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f62f5798-fe9b-4c46-8c00-dae8abdd4af3">▶️</a>3.2 - March 13th PUCT Open Meeting</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval of all revision requests from February during the meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approved revisions will be implemented in the protocols on April 1.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of adjustments being made to accommodate the changes.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=dfbc4712-a959-4640-b68c-ec7661c6a491">▶️</a>4 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/Revision-Request-Summary-032625.pdf">Revision-Request-Summary-032625.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There are 12 revision requests on the agenda this month, with five marked as urgent.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reasons for revision include:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eight for general system and process improvements</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Two for strategic plan objective one</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Two for regulatory requirements</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Budgetary impacts are noted:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1234 has a $600k to $800k impact with an annual recurring operations and maintenance cost of $180k to $220k for staffing</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1256 has a $25k to $50k impact</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">SCR829 has a $100k to $200k impact</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports all revision requests and has provided positive market impact statements for all requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Independent Market Monitor (IMM) supports:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1268</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1267</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Opposes:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1269</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Has no opinion on the remaining requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Scheduling issues required skipping some agenda items, and items five and six will be taken up together in the subsequent discussions.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=2eddeb1c-2ae6-422f-8d13-4154cea67653">▶️</a>4 - Revisiting Revision Request Summary</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 concern: Discussion revolved around its nature as a cost allocation item, impacting ERCOT's decision to shift to a 'no opinion' stance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's previous support of NPRR1190: Initially supported, but opinion changed to 'no opinion' upon further analysis, considering it more of a cost issue rather than reliability or market incentive.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Determination of ERCOT opinions: The decision on having or not having opinions on certain NPRRs can be challenging, and ERCOT may select 'no opinion' for cost allocation-related issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comparison to other regions: Discussion on how other regions handle similar issues, with state committees often handling such decisions in other areas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff’s perspective: Emphasizes the history of ERCOT avoiding taking stances on stakeholder process outcomes, unless impactful, to avoid unnecessary conflicts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Schubert's concerns: Emphasizes ERCOT's different governance as a single state RTO, stressing the importance of addressing comments at the correct jurisdictional level, especially concerning reliability issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on cost allocation opinions: Agreement that cost allocation decisions are typically state-driven and not usually addressed by RTOs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Forward-looking approach: Understanding that ERCOT will continue to selectively have opinions on NPRRs, possibly less so for cost allocation items.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c82784eb-467f-4ed6-af10-18336caccd13">▶️</a>5 - PRS Report (Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/5-PRS-Presentation-to-TAC-032625-v2.pdf">5-PRS-Presentation-to-TAC-032625-v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several revision requests were proposed for discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1268 and NPRR1270 were skipped in the discussion.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c331aa54-b596-4e6e-b838-6e76eec07bb0">▶️</a>5.1 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1234 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report as amended by the 3/25/25 ERCOT comments as revised by TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion carries unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/032625NPRR1234NewBallot.png" width="800" height="787" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill Barnes inquired about ERCOT’s plan to review the cost of processing large load interconnection requests and the possible increase in fees. ERCOT indicated that an analysis is under review, and a fee increase is expected but not substantial.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It was suggested to adjust fees in a subsequent NPRR after the current fee adjustments are processed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Minor language changes were made to align with NPRR1246, ensuring energy storage resources are adequately referenced.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion to approve changes to NPRR1234 was made.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The motion to recommend approval as amended by PRS and the comments was carried unanimously.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A comment was raised by Bob Whitmire regarding the differing treatment of NPRR1234 and NPRR1238 concerning Senate Bill 6 implications; this was noted as an area of concern.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">General support for moving forward with the approvals was expressed by various committee members, emphasizing the importance of progressing despite potential future legislative changes.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=5daa01e5-f1f5-425e-bc74-1848397a1487">▶️</a>5.2 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1256 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report as revised by TAC added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A desktop edit was discussed for NPRR1256 to correct a parameter error by removing stray 'r's to ensure it is properly defined as MRA CRF.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The importance of ensuring protocol equations are correct was emphasized, and a suggestion was made to potentially audit them.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Goff inquired about the last audit of protocol equations, suggesting an audit might be needed, but did not volunteer to do it.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Agreement was reached to include the NPRR1256 as revised by TAC on the combo ballot along with other NPRRs recommended by PRS.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=dd3c2bae-3f5a-4caa-b3fe-48249fdc9e5c">▶️</a>5.3 - NPRR1268, RTC – Modification of Ancillary Service Demand Curves – URGENT</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1268 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report as amended by the 3/19/25 IMM comments; and the 3/18/25 Impact Analysis added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Purpose: Address approved Ancillary Service (AS) demand curves in shortage situations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Objective: Determine price formation in shortage situations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Improvement Proposed: IMM suggested improvement on shaping AS demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Timeline: NPRR filed on January 28.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarifications: Comments from ERCOT and Hunt Energy provided.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Approval: Unanimous approval at PRS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Further Updates: IMM filed minor corrections and comments on March 19.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=de9b7186-2575-4f24-899e-19a0a06396c8">▶️</a>5.4 - NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues – URGENT</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1269 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion carries with 22 in favors, seven opposed, and one abstention.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/032625NPRR1269Ballot.png" width="801" height="787" /> <ul> <li style="list-style-type: none;"> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT presented an updated version of the previous day's presentation regarding the extension of the ancillary service demand curve to the day ahead and real time market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The analysis reinforced previous conclusions, expanding data review across more days and hours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports applying the ancillary service demand floor to both day ahead and real time market, highlighting concerns about market pricing not sufficiently incentivizing self-commitment for the tail amounts of ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT clarified that the $15 per megawatt per hour value for the floor was derived modestly from RUC proposals, emphasizing it as a fair assessment compared to historical minimum prices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion stressed that floor allowances enable offers below $15 to support the ancillary service plan, especially where existing curves would not allow them.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT acknowledged the need for a deeper review of determining ancillary service quantities, with projects slated for 2026 and potentially 2027 aimed at refining these needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT reviewed scenarios exemplifying how demand curve floors might impact outcomes, indicating the floor's role in procurement decisions, especially where higher ancillary service plans present challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some opposition was expressed regarding the $15 floor and the proxy offer methodology, criticizing its potential to obstruct competitive price formation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM emphasized a need for clearer rules on offer obligations and compliance monitoring to ensure market efficiency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consumers expressed discomfort with the floor's ability to affect market outcomes, advocating to defer changes until after observing real time co-optimization impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TCPA and others supported the proposal as a means to avoid excessive reliance on out-of-market actions like RUCs, aiming for competitive market resolution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Overall, there was a mixed response, with some advocating for the floor proposal to ensure reliability through market measures, whereas others urged consideration of ancillary service procurement processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A discussion ensued about conducting further studies and market analysis to refine decisions and ensure efficiency before adopting significant changes.</li> <li> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=ca9b0980-4a6c-4194-a51b-394a74ef46c7">▶️</a>5.5 - NPRR1270, Additional Revisions Required for Implementation of RTC – URGENT</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1270 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1270 clarifies removal of automatic ancillary service qualifications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Currently, there is an automatic qualification in protocols to be removed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The goal is to have a qualification process similar to today's approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This change addresses the risk of proxy offers and reduces proxy offer curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1270 was filed on January 28 by ERCOT with unanimous PRS approval, and no comments received.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Key policy issues include ramp sharing, parameters for AS proxy offer floors, and RUC studies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Scaling factors for ramping have support, while parameters for AS proxy offer floors involve an evolving discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT proposed a compromise for proxy offer floors using the minimum of $2,000 or a percentage solution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised by the IMM and TIEC regarding the high proposed $2,000 proxy offer floor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">RUC needs to use a penalty factor for low situations to ensure commitments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT proposed a $15 floor on the ASDC for the RUC tool finalized via comments on March 3.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">TCPA filed comments to propose a $15 floor application to real-time and day-ahead market AS demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT prioritizes authorization for operations optimization tools for reliability and economic solution dispatch.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A study was shared regarding market impacts of $15 floor, highlighting balance between competitive offers and affordability.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=4cca5937-2342-4a44-9c84-6eecdb076229">▶️</a>5.6 - NPRR1273, Appropriate Accounting for ESRs in PRC Calculation – URGENT</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1273 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1273 is under consideration, coming to ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On March 12, PRS unanimously voted to grant urgent status and recommend approval as submitted with the 02/12/2025 no impact IA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1256 was also discussed, with PRS voting unanimously on March 12 to endorse and forward the February 12 PRS report and the October 14 IA with the recommended priority and rank.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A system change request was addressed with PRS voting unanimously on March 12 to endorse and forward the February 12 PRS report and the March 11 IA with recommended priority and rank.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=0cb1d931-5c73-44b6-8596-2f52d189639b">▶️</a>5.7 - SCR829, API for the NDCRC Application</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of SCR829 as recommended by PRS in the 3/12/25 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=72e9d5e2-33c3-421c-84a2-a20d78767a3a">▶️</a>6 - RTC+B Task Force Report</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/6_RTCBTF_TAC_Update_03262025.pdf">6_RTCBTF_TAC_Update_03262025.pdf</a> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/NPRR1269---Impact-of-the-Proposed-ASDC-Floors---ERCOT---TAC---032625.pdf">NPRR1269---Impact-of-the-Proposed-ASDC-Floors---ERCOT---TAC---032625.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">See item 5 for more details.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Initial housekeeping slides for the RTCBTF were presented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Purpose was to set up a summary of the NPRRs for discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A focus on policy issues was highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Market readiness issues were also addressed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Previous discussions had covered related topics extensively.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=bf6697ff-8921-4751-90ec-c77e8bfabb65">▶️</a>7 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Moved to address revision requests currently tabled at this committee.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=e3b09511-e740-49a6-9bf4-a22262bc2160">▶️</a>7.1 - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR264 remains tabled pending NPRR1235.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=08cb7a4d-8118-49f9-8c82-5c4b31fc347b">▶️</a>8 - ROS Report (Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/ROS_Update_to_TAC-32625.pdf">ROS_Update_to_TAC-32625.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PGRR115 and PGRR119 have been approved and are included in today's voting items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR265 is pending return for IA review.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1238 has moved to PRS, and ERCOT has tabled it to assess the impact of SB6.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Upcoming meeting scheduled for next Thursday via Webex.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Voting items include NOGRR274, PGRR115, and PGRR119 as recommended by ROS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR274 and PGRR119 are proposed to be on a combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on PGRR115 involves questions from John Russ Hubbard concerning its language. </li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c05e6c98-0d13-48f7-b9d8-1ce09efb8160">▶️</a>8.1 - NOGRR274 Conform Nodal Operating Guide to Revisions Implemented for NPRR1217, Remove Verbal Dispatch Instruction (VDI) Requirement for Deployment and Recall of Load Resources and Emergency Response Service (ERS) Resources</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR274 as recommended by ROS in the 3/6/25 ROS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=196f53a0-46de-485e-9b6b-4d4030cd0008">▶️</a>8.2 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of PGRR115 as recommended by ROS in the 3/6/25 ROS Report as revised by TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion carries unanimously with 3 abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/032625PGRR115Ballot.png" width="800" height="790" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion about the applicability of new interconnection requirements to new requests versus ongoing projects, with clarification that currently ongoing projects are exempt unless specific conditions arise (e.g., modifications under section 9.2.3).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarifications on the necessity of signing agreements to lock in study results and avoid impacts from new loads in the queue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about capabilities of equipment, namely requiring breakers capable of interrupting fault current for large load connections.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion of potential issues related to self-generators (SOx) and Qualified Facilities (QFs) arising from isolation requirements of large loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Request and confirmation to adjust the date in the proposal from March 1 to June 1, 2025, to accommodate potential board approval timelines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns about possible conflicts with Senate Bill 6, particularly around exceptions for critical facilities and large load isolation requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on whether to table the motion, with arguments presented for and against moving forward with current language versus providing time for further study and alignment with Senate Bill 6.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Support for moving forward with the current proposal despite identified issues, with ERCOT open to quick follow-up for necessary adjustments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Motion to table the proposal failed with 86% against, followed by a motion to approve with the noted desktop edits, which passed without opposition but with three abstentions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Reasons for abstentions were clarified, primarily due to concerns about remote controllable breaker requirements and needing clearer procedures.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d98fd22d-13e1-4d7d-9b19-4b56bd46ed6c">▶️</a>8.3 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of PGRR119 as recommended by ROS in the 3/6/25 ROS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=820fd36c-5148-47ff-b1e0-86936190e3c3">▶️</a>9 - WMS Report (Vote)</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/WMS-Report-to-TAC---March-26-2025.pdf">WMS-Report-to-TAC---March-26-2025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ADER phase three governing document was discussed; there were concerns about third party aggregation for NCLRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants are expected to bring revised language or materials for further discussion in April.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A vote on the ADER phase three document is anticipated in April or May.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is expected to bring information to CMWG regarding a congestion event on February 19, specifically about constraint activation procedures, at their April 14 meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Endorsed or approved several items unanimously, including NPRR1214 and NPRR1271.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1264 had one abstention; the companion revision request will remain until an IA is available, expected in May.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229 had some no votes.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=4305803f-da3f-4223-9454-54db5197fe31">▶️</a>9.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of SMOGRR028 as recommended by WMS in the 3/5/25 WMS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">SMOGRR028 was approved with 80% in support, leading to the withdrawal of NPRR1200.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">An update was given on the approval of the no impact IA in the previous meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Seth raised concerns about the unexpected frequency of rocks (RUCs) occurring out of season and requested more explanations from ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It was proposed that WMS and WMWG would be appropriate forums to address these concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The WMWG has a monthly RUC report that could provide a resource for understanding recurring issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was a discussion on whether ERCOT reports provide enough detail about causes of RUCs, such as transmission or capacity issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were voiced about a possible lack of market incentives for self-commitment possibly affecting RUC occurrences.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">John Ritch added a comment about the importance of understanding ERCOT's use of shift factors to manage congestion and its implications.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f48d257e-72c0-4b97-9f09-77a0e745f4bf">▶️</a>10 - Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report (Possible Vote)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The task force is considering a name change from "Large Flexible Load Task Force" to "Large Load Task Force" due to the challenge in defining "flexible".</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The name change is suggested because of a disconnect in expectations around flexibility, particularly with crypto miners.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is a draft scope suggesting this name change that removes the word "flexible".</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The possibility of transitioning the task force into a working group is being considered as large loads appear to be a permanent issue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns exist regarding operational issues caused by city-side loads acting simultaneously.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Examples from other parts of the country have shown voltage ride-through issues with large loads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential development of a dedicated data center operations group under the LFL, focusing solely on data center issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">This subset would allow participants to focus on relevant meetings and reduce unnecessary attendance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A suggestion was made to roll the task force into the DSWG, treating it as a working group reporting to TAC, but without voting rights.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A reminder that data center operations and under frequency load sheds will also be discussed in a meeting set for Friday.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Members are asked to consider these changes and the future structure of the group before the next month’s vote.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=315a7b41-c764-4f0f-bdb7-5e4cb9fe2749">▶️</a>10.1 - LFLTF Charter</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A proposed charter change will be presented next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two slides will be prepared to outline all changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A new subgroup will be introduced within the group.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback is welcomed for the proposed changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on waiting until after Senate Bill 6 (SB6), which doesn't alter physics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Martha Henson and another participant support the large load working group reporting to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus sought on direction for the working group to report to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Demand side working group currently reports to WMS instead of TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to have the large load working group likely report to TAC due to reliability and market components.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Open to feedback and further discussions, with final decision to be made in the next meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Alternative suggestions are welcomed via email.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=75534e55-5b3f-4688-a057-3491240a3a21">▶️</a>11 - ERCOT Reports - 12:20 p.m.</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=39eb4417-d6e1-4d1f-a673-33ada6b401be">▶️</a>11.1 - Large Load Interconnection Status Update</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/LLI-Queue-Status-Update---2025-3.pdf">LLI-Queue-Status-Update---2025-3.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The large load queue has increased significantly over the past year to about 8,000 megawatts, marking a 9,234-megawatt increase since the last update.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Categories for large load projects include observed energized, approved energized but not operational, planning studies approved, under ERCOT review, and no study submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">In the past 12 months, 1,827 megawatts have been approved to energize, maintaining a stable approved to energized load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">6,306 megawatts approved to energize with around half residing in Load Zone West. Out of these, 5,231 megawatts consist of standalone projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Non-simultaneous monthly peak consumption observed at 3,315 megawatts in March, with simultaneous monthly peak at 3,140 megawatts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for more segmentation of large loads by customer types, possibly to be provided without exposing specific customer data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for project size quantization to assist in viewing the queue without revealing customer-specific information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on if the dates in the large load trajectory reflect ramp-up schedules or initial requests. Ramp schedules, if provided, are reflected in the chart.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on simultaneous peak measurement and its alignment with broader system monthly peaks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comment on improving the accuracy and frequency of schedule updates with the implementation of PGRR115.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Enquiry about planning studies approved contingent on transmission upgrades, with a possibility to present this breakdown publicly in the future.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f44d18e3-1f32-42c8-ab97-e09811cc510b">▶️</a>11.2 - Potential Price Correction</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/Real-Time-Market-Price-Correction-%E2%80%93-Usage-of-Incorrect-MW-Values-in-the-Calculation-of-Constraint-Math-Limits.pdf">Real-Time-Market-Price-Correction-–-Usage-of-Incorrect-MW-Values-in-the-Calculation-of-Constraint-Math-Limits.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion led by Matt Young, a supervisor at ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus on the potential for price correction in the electrical market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Considerations of current market factors influencing pricing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed recent pricing anomalies and their causes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Evaluation of strategies for addressing pricing issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential impacts of price corrections on stakeholders.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=70c3f006-30af-495f-8093-e765fe9949ad">▶️</a>11.2.1 - Aug. 12 – Sep. 11, 2024 – Usage of Incorrect MW Values in the Calculation of Constraint Math Limit</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential price corrections are being considered due to usage of incorrect MW values in constraint math limits from Aug. 12 to Sep. 11, 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A software defect in EMS released in November 2023 prevented updating of the last good telemeter MW value.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">On Sept. 5, 2023, stale MW values caused a system lambda spike from $20 to $200.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A market notice was sent on Sept. 11, 2023, and the issue was fixed the same day.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A lengthy analysis identified 27 days with impacts meeting criteria for potential price correction.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Criteria for corrections include a counterparty impact of either 2% and over $20,000 or 20% and over $2,000.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A new methodology for calculating price corrections was developed to prevent unwarranted payments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There are concerns over the transparency and protocol clarity regarding the new methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some attendees suggested that the methodology should be covered in protocols for transparency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on data checking for stale inputs was prompted by a question regarding preventive measures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next steps include presenting new prices to the board for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns remain about the protocol allowing for interpretation changes in settlement calculations.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=3d03aef2-a9cf-4cc5-bbb0-12d04a0cb11c">▶️</a>11.3 - Outage Coordination Outage Capacity Calculation and Process Update</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/TAC_ERCOT-Outage-Coordination-Update_03262025.pdf">TAC_ERCOT-Outage-Coordination-Update_03262025.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fred Huang from ERCOT provided a status update on outage coordination and capacity calculation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT proposed a temporary freeze on the MDRPOC update until a risk-based methodology is reviewed and implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The current methodology does not account for energy storage contributions, which is being reconsidered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is ongoing discussion on incorporating risk-based approaches to improve MDRPOC accuracy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about the exclusion of current battery capacity in MDRPOC calculations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT aims to develop a method to quantify risks associated with outage capacity planning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is interest in parallel stakeholder processes to expedite solutions and feedback collection.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff suggested involving WMS in parallel efforts to develop alternative methodologies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR processes were discussed for further stakeholder review and implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about how outage capacities affect long-term hedging and market certainty.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for transparent information and flexible models for improved reliability was emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Action items were proposed, such as WMS's involvement in developing and bringing alternative methodologies back to TAC.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=5027bd6a-b50b-42fa-adcb-5450c4751cd6">▶️</a>11.4 - Segment Membership Update</h4> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/NextEra-Bylaw-Proposal-3297305.2-c.pdf">NextEra-Bylaw-Proposal-3297305.2-c.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review and update of ERCOT bylaws due to changes in technology and the categorization of data centers and cryptocurrency centers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Data and cryptocurrency centers currently fall under the industrial consumer segment according to current bylaws.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder interest in revisiting and updating bylaws for modern consistency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"><a href="/pages/calendar/meeting/smart-agenda/?event_id=4022">Workshop held on February 14</a> to discuss potential bylaw updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three proposals submitted: Calpine, Constellation, Vistra on industrial/independent generator segments; NextEra, Lone Star on transmission/distribution entities; TIEC, ERCOT Steel Mills, Texas Blockchain on the definition of  industrial consumers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Public encouraged to review proposals under key documents of the TAC meeting page.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Response deadline for proposals is April 18.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initial overview of proposals to be presented at the April 8 Board meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Post-April 18, ERCOT will work on a consensus redline version of the bylaws.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An update is expected at the April 23 TAC meeting, possibility of another workshop depending on proposal feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aim to present a consolidated bylaw update at the June 23 HR and Governance committee board meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Formal amendment process planned for the September 23 board meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market notice to be sent soon to remind about the April 18 deadline.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f6b4462a-1743-407e-8049-4df09754da8c">▶️</a>12 - Other Business - 1:20 p.m.</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=001a651f-09ba-47e1-8568-3e7f1ec24a49">▶️</a>12.1 - 2026 Block Calendar</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initial draft of the 2026 Block Calendar was presented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Five board meetings are scheduled for the year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC is scheduled for nine meetings throughout the year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The first five months have monthly TAC meetings, followed by a decrease in meetings during the second half of the year, particularly in June and September.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=e2dce0f8-d230-4058-a614-b711b6549870">▶️</a>12.2 - ERCOT Board/Stakeholder Engagement Discussion</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to have stakeholders speak at full board meetings as R&M integrates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation on hot topics proposed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">First topic identified as transmission planning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed involved parties: IOUs, industrial consumers, and IBRs</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No negative feedback received on proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Coordination with John Russ Hubbard ongoing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal entails one speaker each for IBRs, IOUs, and consumer side.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b1fd8d0e-afab-4faf-848d-3516fe0e8d32">▶️</a>12.3 - Market Design Framework Workshop</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Market Design Framework Workshop, initially planned for today, is postponed to next month's meeting due to a full agenda.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Preparation for the workshop includes a presentation and potential comments from others as material for the meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The workshop is scheduled for 90 minutes, with flexibility for additional time if needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An action item review indicated a candidate for removal - a process related to TAC goal number 18 for market design, initially set for post-winter storm Uri policies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The action item was associated with a strategic objective by ERCOT but was deemed stale and not fulfilled.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a0c82252-0c92-4902-980a-79d16bcd98bf">▶️</a>13 - Combo Ballot (Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the combined ballot as presented carries unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul>  <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/032725TACcomboitems.png" width="798" height="140" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/022725TACCombo.png" width="806" height="790" />