Frame

Meeting Summary - 02/12/2025 PRS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
02/12/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/02/02122025PRSHero.png" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d3f4ac55-fc1b-407a-bad4-54920dbb8917">▶️</a> 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=08d8e6fd-9425-4fe4-aaac-b0f8c2b40e6e">▶️</a> 2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=06a25599-a11a-4883-906c-1d492589fe9a">▶️</a> 2.01 - January 15, 2025</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the January 15, 2025 PRS meeting minutes as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=04509c04-456a-444f-a9a1-a85ff9ef3971">▶️</a> 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC approved all submitted items, totaling 10 NPRRs and one system change request.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Commission also approved these items this week.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3755a477-12be-4af6-81e2-4555c8860427">▶️</a> 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/02/prs_february_2025_project_update.pdf">prs_february_2025_project_update.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Troy Anderson provides a project update highlighting special reports, including IA results from last year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Future meetings will cover FTE results from prior IAs and post RTC revision request reprioritization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several projects went live in January, with upcoming projects like NPRR1145 in March and NPRR1253 involving ESR charging load information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SCR820 discussion on tentative plans for testing and go-live in Q1 of 2026.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Major project updates, including adjustments on DRRS row and PCM project details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IA statistics show a delayed review focusing on percentage, dollar, and duration variances.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Notable IA compliance projects include NPRR1040 and CRR combination of SCR807 and SCR816, with significant cost overruns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on project delivery variances from anticipated timelines and costs, highlighting improvements in estimation processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on the utility of the IA report to improve estimation accuracy and confidence for approval processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional discussion on the potential presentation of summarized information at TAC.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=598e8316-3606-46c6-ac6f-92439ed4148a">▶️</a> 5 - Urgency Vote - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=884ac6cf-e949-4a30-a5ed-ecb9f4d6eab2">▶️</a> 5.01 - NPRR1272, Voltage Support at Private Use Networks</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1272 filed a week ago, currently within a fourteen-day comment period, requiring urgency consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on whether to grant urgency to NPRR1272, affecting a priority project in West Texas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Melissa Trevino expressed concern about interpretation of protocols risking project timelines and costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich indicated technical questions, not prepared to support urgency without further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bob Helton highlighted similar issues faced by clients and mentioned the significant cost for reactive support, suggesting a need for discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion highlighted ERCOT's neutral stance on the NPRR language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cory Phillips clarified procedural options if urgency is not granted, including stakeholder-led discussions at subcommittees.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus reached to continue discussions without granting urgency, allowing subcommittees to take it up and discuss it in March.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich and Richard committed to bringing the NPRR to ROS and other relevant groups for further examination.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=04cb7011-5cb9-46ff-bf2b-1be5bd1d2220">▶️</a> 6 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=88fbcb8a-d02e-4fe5-8bd5-f23055281e66">▶️</a> 6.01 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee*</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 1/15/25 PRS Report and 1/28/25 Impact Analysis for NPRR1241 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1241 was endorsed or recommended for approval as amended by the December 3 Luminant comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No cost or project implications were mentioned.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The committee considered moving NPRR1241 to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No objections or additional comments were raised regarding the direction.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=4db574d8-7f0a-475d-81b4-28d64f0120fe">▶️</a> 6.02 - SCR829, API for the NDCRC Application</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table SCR829 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">SCR829 discussed alongside SCR830.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b26a44c5-b58d-4126-8901-ba11a5951a3f">▶️</a> 6.03 - SCR830, Expose Limited API Endpoints Using Machine-to-Machine Authentication</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table SCR830 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on system change requests SCR829 and SCR830.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT filed comments on an alternative schedule for the IA.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Estimation process for the current meeting not completed, hopeful for March completion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Decision to table SCR829 and SCR830 until the March vote with new IAs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Agreement to add SCR829 and SCR830 to the combo ballot for tabling.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Luminant submitted changes for a verifiable cost change with comments to automate the process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Minor changes made to ensure automation, with no policy changes proposed.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=f4ab4ee8-513c-4814-ab88-7baf1fe3ea47">▶️</a> 6.04 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse the WMS-recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 4720 for VCMRR042 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Suggestion to place VCMRR042 on the combination ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification that the committee is not assessing the gray box language approved by WMS, but rather the VCMRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on project time and cost, emphasizing PRS's role in maintaining priority and ranks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The assigned priority and rank for VCMRR042 is 2026 and 4720, which is the next in line without cutting in front of any previously voted items.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Endorsement of WMS's recommended priority and rank, no conflicts identified.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Agreement to move VCMRR042 to the combo ballot as it doesn't change voting positions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Acknowledgment that the automation project related to VCMRR042 will likely occur post-RTC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasis on the implementation being post-RTC, as noted in Troy Anderson presentation.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=80d9b779-684d-4063-819f-c47ba221ddba">▶️</a> 7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS (Possible Vote) - Diana Coleman</h3> <h4>7.01-7.02 - Not Discussed</h4> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=06aca016-c809-4f29-9c2b-3e6e823de7c7">▶️</a> 7.03 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to keep NPRR1202 tabled to wait for new fee information before recommending its rejection.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=8e9f89f6-639e-41fd-881d-a31664bd185e">▶️</a> 7.04 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1214 was discussed with file comments provided for clarification and edits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments were mechanical in nature, ensuring implementation feasibility of the proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No policy changes were being introduced with the comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR1214 was already tabled and did not require further action in the meeting.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=658427af-df20-43cf-ae41-215788fc2dc0">▶️</a> 7.05 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1226 as amended by the 2/11/25 ERCOT comments added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Mark Patterson outlined updates on NPRR1226, highlighting extensive behind-the-scenes efforts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1226 proposes changes, focusing on aggregating state estimator loads data showing responses to price signals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The initial request for ERCOT to create a demand response value was removed due to baseline disagreements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Data will be posted via ICCP and ERCOT API for market participants to analyze.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This NPRR will not include a visual dashboard or display of data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal has reached a compromise and consensus with the sponsor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It's proposed to move NPRR1226 to the combo ballot for further consideration, depending on an impact analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised about the cost-benefit ratio and the accuracy of the data's reflection of reality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussions about potential synergies with Carl Raish's work on demand response reports were noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Participants agreed to move NPRR1226 to the combo ballot for ERCOT to start the impact analysis and project implementation.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=5d5520ab-3305-44ef-bd5d-6fcfb8063877">▶️</a> 7.06 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment (ROS/WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two sets of comments were filed on NPRR1229, including ROS comments which concluded the issues are financial and didn't make a recommendation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1229 is still under discussion at WMS for WMWG discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT reinstated language that was inadvertently omitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS approved the NPRR1229 with ERCOT's latest comments on February 6.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d55a52dc-58d8-44bd-ad56-c96a9127aff0">▶️</a> 7.07 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater (ROS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1234 as amended by the 1/24/25 ERCOT comment passed with one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT proposed additional revisions beyond their December comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Occidental Chemical Corporation also submitted comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised that the new language added by ERCOT could conflict with NPRR1272.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A proposal was made to table NPRR1234 until PGRR receives final approval at ROS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">If NPRR1234 is voted on as-is, some members indicated they would vote no and propose amendments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1234 remains tabled; it has not had any comments filed since January.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Martha Henson from Oncor suggested moving NPRR1234 forward with ERCOT comments from January 24.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were discussed regarding interconnection fees for large loads at ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion was made to approve NPRR1234 with the January 24 ERCOT comments by Martha Henson and seconded by Jim Lee.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill Barnes from ERCOT announced plans to file comments addressing the interconnection fees before the next PRS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was discussion about the potential for a separate NPRR to address the fee component specifically.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The market expressed willingness to pay higher fees for faster service.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A note was made regarding Mark Smith's participation and voting from CMC Steel due to missing validation.</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/02/021225PRS1234Ballot_1dnpnli3wfo9v.png" width="801" height="775" /> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d1d43eb8-21f7-4d8d-a20f-15e63f6b6a93">▶️</a> 7.08 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A workshop regarding NPRR1235 is scheduled for later this month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The main discussions about Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service (DRRS) will occur at the upcoming workshop.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant discussions have already taken place at the System Ancillary Services Working Group (SAWG).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No actions on NPRR1235 are expected until after the workshop.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6bb18922-a8b9-49e2-b8f8-a2c76e3e31aa">▶️</a> 7.09 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities (ROS/WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing conversations about NPRR1238.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issue was raised at the Operational Working Group (OWG) this week.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=3581ce63-b764-4c4e-866b-82107508afd6">▶️</a> 7.10 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith mentioned she wrote comments but noted ongoing work with ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is a request to keep the item tabled until further notice.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A joint proposal or comments are expected in March.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=31008f9d-c455-4db2-ab07-3d39b6e0b564">▶️</a> 7.11 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1256 as amended by the 1/27/25 ERCOT comments added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1256 was discussed, previously reviewed by WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Oncor was involved in the discussion regarding NPRR1256.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The group considered ERCOT's comments from January 27.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was consensus to move NPRR1256 to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No further discussion was noted on this item.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=ad7ed6c9-9a5b-4db8-8daf-5f401d85e7cd">▶️</a> 7.12 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Joint comments filed by ERCOT and Lancium, indicating some agreement has been reached regarding the NPRR1262.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lancium offers an irrevocable, no-cost, sublicensable license for their intellectual property, relevant to the discussions in meetings and courts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Negotiations between Lancium and ERCOT are in the final stages, with both parties optimistic about reaching a successful agreement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposed license aims to facilitate CLRs and other computing loads offering ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The agenda item is currently tabled, with a potential request for withdrawal in the future.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Once finalized, the term sheet regarding the license agreement will be made public.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Lancium expresses commitment to transparency to ensure stakeholders feel assured about using the CLR registration process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1262 remains tabled.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6b991282-64bf-40f3-93be-3b7d6b0b13cf">▶️</a> 7.14 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Multiple comments were submitted regarding NPRR1264.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group's efforts were highlighted, specifically concerning nuclear energy credits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about the Renewable Portfolio Standard's future and whether it would become voluntary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The initiative aims to facilitate tracking and valuing all types of energy attribute credits including nuclear, gas, solar, and batteries.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT requested additional comments to either support or oppose the business case for this initiative.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith expressed support emphasizing the variety of applications and potential staffing impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about the program's potential use for dispatchable energy credits and flexibility depending on buyers' needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Chris Matos from Google expressed strong support, aligning with corporate goals for 24/7 carbon-free energy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The matter was tabled and will be discussed further, with a potential vote at PRS next month.</li> </ul>   <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6ca7d3f1-e5c3-48f1-ba4e-c097b216e047">▶️</a> 7.16 - NPRR1266, Opt-Out Status Held by a Transmission-Voltage Customer Cannot be Transferred (RMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT provided comments on NPRR1266.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The item was previously tabled in January and referred to WMS.</li> </ul> <h4>7.17 - 7.18 - Not Discussed</h4> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d44c641a-dae8-4467-b598-0a331666302b">▶️</a> 8 - Review of Revision Request Language (Vote) Diana Coleman</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=68d94331-559b-426d-a608-a6c694f92f9b">▶️</a> 8.01 - NPRR1267, Large Load Interconnection Status Report</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1267 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1267 was raised by joint sponsors to address public interest in large load interconnections and balance customer confidentiality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Goff highlighted the media focus on load growth over reliability and the need for deeper data disaggregation by ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Comments from Google and others have been integrated to maintain confidentiality while providing transparency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion centered on achieving a balance between detailed reporting and customer privacy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Specific discussion points included potential revisions to the requested interconnection study date.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The need to adjust language and ensure it aligns with practical implementation was emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Several suggestions were made for additional data types, such as flexible load flags and quarter-based data reporting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Martha Henson raised concerns about the interconnection study duration metric proposed by Google, questioning its usefulness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Chris Matos acknowledged the need for further dialogue and adjustments to accommodate privacy concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Announcement of plans for a large load task force meeting to further discuss and refine reporting mechanisms.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion was proposed and agreed to table the item for further discussion and refinement, including evaluation at the task force meeting.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=d54ff0a2-76c7-4a0b-823d-6108bb685ca3">▶️</a>8.02 - NPRR1268, RTC – Modification of Ancillary Service Demand Curves</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1268 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1268 relates to the IMM and the Ancillary Service (AS) demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The discussion focuses on evaluating possible improvements to the existing AS demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There has been ongoing feedback from stakeholders regarding the potential for a better methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The IMM has spent two to three months developing a proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A change has been codified into protocols as a possible improvement for implementation.</li> </ul> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=df949c58-1b78-472d-8704-7cf8f06ea408">▶️</a> Additional Discussion on NPRR1268 <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Andrew Reimer from IMM noted the sparseness of comments on the NPRR1268 indicating ongoing digestion by stakeholders.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Plan to apply for urgent status if a decision is not reached to ensure it is addressed in the following PRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The urgency is driven by the timeline for implementation before the market trials starting in May and June.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Development is ongoing, and coding is already in progress without an IA due to program awareness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Andrew emphasized the importance of the March PRS for maintaining the schedule aimed at the March TAC and April board.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussions to continue in RTC+B meetings to address varied comments, including those from IMM and Shams.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">All proposals, NPRR1268, NPRR1269, and NPRR1270, suggested to be tabled for further comment discussion and urgency assessment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT plans to file comments on topics identified in December after discussions with the task force, aiming for resolution in subsequent meetings.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=88148e61-2a2d-476c-a447-6a3400a27a14">▶️</a>8.03 - NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1269 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Decisions on parameter issues such as AS proxy offer when QSE does not offer a price for ancillary service.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consideration of values for AS proxy offers, whether zero, cap, or lookup value.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Ramp rate sharing issues, including the five sevenths issue originating from ESI.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">AS demand curves impact on price formation and commitment in real-time during scarcity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Integration of AS demand curves into reliability unit commitment study tool.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on operator-initiated reliability unit commitments using this tool.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consensus on addressing these issues expected by December.</li> </ul> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=1a3bdae4-f893-4a58-a49f-f206897ab3d8">▶️</a> Additional Discussion on NPRR1269 <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There are three main parameters captured in NPRR1269. These parameters were part of a task force initiative for more transparent protocol.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proxy offer floors should be derived from ancillary service demand curves. The goal is to avoid shortages in ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Scaling factor values for ramp sharing adapts concepts from current market practices to the new real-time co-optimization system. Allows ramp sharing to provide efficiencies without impacting reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recognizes different needs in RUC studies compared to real-time and day-ahead markets. Offers flexibility to tailor demand curves for RUC specific commitments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion focused on proxy offer aspects and caps.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns about over procurement of Non-Spin using RUC. Interest in lowering the floor price for ERCOT's ASDC Non-Spin curve.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Hunt Energy filed comments on AS demand curves. Encouragement for a separate initiative to reformulate the AORDC instead of integrating it with NPRR1268.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=1b2ff5d8-daf0-48e1-91a1-f2e7ced0cc3c">▶️</a> 8.04 - NPRR1270, Additional Revisions Required for Implementation of RTC</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1270 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1270's purpose: Addressing award reliability concerns by removing automatic qualifications for SCED status to provide ECRS and Non-Spin services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Task force meetings scheduled for resolving issues are planned for February 5 and 19, with further discussions to happen at PRS meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Aims to bring two or three options for voting at the next PRS meeting to help decide on the NPRRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on state of charge qualifications: Currently not resolved, aiming for the July board meeting instead of April.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Coordination on meeting schedules with WMS, RMS, and LFLTF, addressing concerns of stakeholders stretched thin by double meeting days.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1268, NPRR1269, and NPRR1270 all have been tabled for further discussions with urgency to maintain the implementation schedule for market trials.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Stakeholders encouraged to submit comments to have a robust discussion at upcoming task force meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1268, NPRR1269, and NPRR1270 are planned for the March PRS to maintain timeline for market readiness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Key stakeholders involved include task forces, ERCOT representatives, and independent market monitor (IMM).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Comments and edits by ERCOT expected for NPRR1268 due to specific issues discussed at the task force.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c858313b-bf77-47b5-baf5-0e2862b4f474">▶️</a>8.05 - NPRR1271, Revision to User Security Administrator and Digital Certificates Opt-out Eligibility</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1271 and refer the issue to WMS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1271 aims to revise current user security and digital certificate opt-out eligibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal allows the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), to opt out of certain registrations due to their non-use of certificates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The change is designed for emergency situations involving ERCOT's import/export activities with the US.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The opt-out option permits flexibility to opt back in if needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No impact on computer systems, business functions, or grid and policy operations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Debbie Lightner explains the QSE schedules for CFE but is separate from the digital certificate requirement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion arose regarding whether CFE should operate like other market participants concerning digital certificates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The committee proposed to move NPRR1271 to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill Barnes was willing to make a motion to recommend approval but suggested postponing for further consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns expressed why CFE differs from other participants and verification is recommended by WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT's role in issuing digital certificates was clarified, with possibilities for other parties acting as a QSE on behalf.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=18d58b46-4031-4af5-b79a-8f57db661999">▶️</a> 8.06 - SCR831, Short Circuit Model Integration</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table SCR831 and refer the issue to ROS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">System change request SCR831 submitted by ERCOT aims to update the network model management system to include short circuit data for system protection working group cases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Update involves the NMMS system, topology processor, ODMS, and model on demand (MOD). It aims to automate currently manual processes to reduce workload.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The update will allow integration of short circuit cases with steady state cases to ensure consistent topology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">An older SCR regarding geomagnetic disturbance data could potentially be combined with this effort to reduce costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Implementation may require more effort from TSPs submitting information and involve changes in timelines and workloads.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Work with system protection, network data support, and steady state working groups is necessary to align timelines and case building requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The System Protection Working Group (SPWG) has this topic on the agenda for its next meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There is consideration for referring the SCR to ROS for formal review by relevant working groups and subject matter experts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The decision was made to table the item and refer it to ROS to be added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3>9 - Other Business</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <h4>9.01 - Not Discussed</h4> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=435d3aa3-8fd9-41d5-9beb-c86b7b584fe9">▶️</a>10 - Combo Ballot (Vote) - Diana Coleman</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the combo ballot as presented passed unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/02/021225PRSComboBallotItems_1gsld0ocvl1eo.png" width="799" height="274" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2025/02/021225PRSComboBallot_1n77wwoq740dn.png" width="800" height="756" /> <h3>▶️11 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman</h3>