Frame

Meeting Summary - 03/12/2025 PRS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
03/13/2025

<div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRShero.png" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3695b941-c270-4308-a721-86abf2d7d8de">▶️</a>1 - Antitrust Admonition</h3> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a8a0a09b-fc24-4141-9c75-7f35968bfadb">▶️</a>2 - Approval of Minutes (Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=32f1afc5-a572-4012-80be-05b63150dd6e">▶️</a>2.01 - February 12, 20255</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the February 12, 2025 PRS meeting minutes as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=cccb34de-6f1c-4f80-8f65-a420ee5661b2">▶️</a>3 - TAC Update</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1241 firm fuel supply service was sent to TAC and approved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Drafting of 2025 TAC goals underway, with potential rebranding as strategic goals.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=271fa41b-c7ac-446a-bb6d-eaa5e8843bb5">▶️</a>4 - PRS Goals/Strategic Objectives (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There are few customizable goals; modifications might be needed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">They plan to present something for PRS to review and possibly vote on next month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC already approved the 2025 goals, rebranded as strategic objectives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">These strategic objectives are available for review to inform future PRS goals.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=391b6b4c-948e-4d79-80b1-919a01e4ee59">▶️</a>5 - Project Update</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/PRS_March_2025_Project_Update_v2.pdf">PRS_March_2025_Project_Update_v2.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three NPRRs have IAs completed today, while two, including SCR830, require more time.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Revision Request Project Information available at <a href="http://www.ercot.com/services/projects">http://www.ercot.com/services/projects</a> with detailed reports including revision requests history back to 2013.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1254 went live on March 1. RTC+B market trial sandbox deployed on March 7.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1145 for R3 is ongoing. NPRR1253's ICCP and public API components are proposed to go live in May instead of March and May separately for easier protocol compliance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IA variances report: Over the last three years, projects exceeded cost estimates by $2 million, with ECRS and FFRA being major contributors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aging projects list is maintained and will be reviewed mid-year to plan next steps after RTC is complete.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TWG schedule change potential discussed, with March 26 or 27 being considered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of global changes to API impacting retail processes with potential updates in future TWG meetings.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=de539aa2-6bdd-49c9-b3ae-00a37eb7c5c1">▶️</a>6 - Urgency Vote (Possible Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=e61a0e30-909d-4e81-9fc1-2b88df24d4c0">▶️</a>6.01 - NPRR1273, Appropriate Accounting for ESRs in PRC Calculation</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to grant NPRR1273 Urgent status; to recommend approval of NPRR1273 as submitted; and to forward to TAC NPRR1273 and the 2/12/25 Impact Analysis added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1273 proposes changes to PRC calculations for frequency-responsive headroom on storage resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Current calculations account for 15-minute sustainable headroom, proposed change is to 45 minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The change is motivated by the need to ensure PRC sustainability during low reserve emergency conditions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">System operators require a minimum of 30 minutes to respond effectively to instructions, impacting PRC visibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Request for urgent implementation is made to ensure changes are in place before summer, specifically June.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The change only requires a parameter adjustment, indicating no significant systems impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Board discussions indicate potential March/April timeline for review and approval, aiming for a June 1 implementation.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=1afd7d1d-3e36-4a13-8002-befb39fa601a">▶️</a>7 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization (Vote) (*) denotes no impact</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=56423811-8628-4cf6-b07a-56f8b23a0252">▶️</a>7.01 - NPRR1226, Estimated Demand Response Data</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1226 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Previously mentioned in the project update that additional time is needed for the Impact Analysis.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=85c9d616-9d40-4545-afa4-6c04ad6fbc53">▶️</a>7.02 - 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 endorse and forward to TAC the 2/12/25 PRS Report and 5/28/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1234 with a recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 4730 passed with one vote opposed and one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Individual ballot required for NPRR1234.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on interconnection fees; ERCOT's ongoing analysis will be completed hopefully before TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Possible creation of a separate NPRR to update fees comprehensively.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Consideration for desktop edits at TAC if new discoveries occur.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Voting outcome: Motion carries with one opposed and one abstention.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225NPRR1234Ballot.png" /></div> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=e7779bf5-ab33-4265-b384-cfd7826ba47b">▶️</a>7.03 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 2/12/25 PRS Report and 10/14/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1256 with a recommended priority of 2027 and rank of 4800 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1256 was approved last month as amended by the January 27 ERCOT comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was agreement to add the NPRR to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=674d571c-dc26-4aa6-81ea-7abbc6069442">▶️</a>7.04 - SCR829, API for the NDCRC Application</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 2/12/25 PRS Report and 3/11/25 Impact Analysis for SCR829 with a recommended priority of 2025 and rank of 4560 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Details included: IA of 100,000 to 200,000, a project timeline of seven to ten months, priority of 2025, and a rank of 4560.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Troy Anderson mentioned the potential to start the project this year, with a likely completion early next year.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=b9eb1546-d443-4297-a2b3-2b20fdaed054">▶️</a>7.05 - SCR830, Expose Limited API Endpoints Using Machine-to-Machine Authentication</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SCR830 needs to be tabled to allow ERCOT time to work on the IA language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SCR830 is already tabled, so no further action is required.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=daa7c23f-a5a1-4d1e-ba1b-dbf74261ed3e">▶️</a>8 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS (Possible Vote)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Real-time co-optimization NPRRs are discussed out of order to prioritize those with the most consensus.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Focus is on NPRR1268 and NPRR1270 initially, followed by NPRR1269.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">For NPRR1269, comments will be reviewed in the following sequence: TCPA, TIEC, IMM, ERCOT, and then by the commission staff.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Matt Merenes, chair of the RTC+B task force, noted the aim to seek urgency for NPRR1268, NPRR1269, and NPRR1270.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1268 and NPRR1270 were noted to have no significant issues, allowing more focus on NPRR1269.</li> </ul> <h4>8.01 - 8.03</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=2125122d-d7b3-4383-9b0f-a02dd128d9c2">▶️</a>8.04 - 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">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1214 as amended by the 1/28/25 ERCOT comments added to the combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1214 was endorsed by WMS earlier in the month and incorporated ERCOT comments from January 28, 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal corrects RDPA price signals by making them locational to address large flexible loads receiving incorrect signals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It introduces an indifference payment to resources to aid reliability and reduce costs compared to the current AS imbalance charge.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR includes a change from a sixty-minute ramp to a more realistic five-minute ramp due to issues with negative RDPAs in historical data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions were raised about the expected timeline for implementation, which is now post-RTC, with hopes for quick implementation as it involves settlement changes.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6b565d7f-fda8-45cc-a2f2-cc136d0d8d21">▶️</a>8.05 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1229 as amended by the 3/6/25 WMS comments as revised by PRS passed with three votes opposed and one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">WMS filed comments and endorsed NPRR1229 with four opposing votes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion started regarding the moving forward or keeping NPRR1229 tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Blake Holt from LCRA expressed support for cost recovery for out-of-market actions and motioned to approve the recent version of comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some members, including Eric Goff, expressed opposition to payment for generators to go down, citing inconsistency with market design and concerns from earlier NPRR1190.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was discussion on a small editing oversight regarding paragraph numbering, which was amended.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion to recommend approval as amended by WMS comments was made and voted on.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Final voting saw three opposed, but the motion to move forward with amendments carried.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225NPRR1229Ballot.png" /></div> <h4>8.06 - Not Discussed</h4> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=58eac3d7-c90b-4b70-84df-b4bec420aa30">▶️</a>8.07 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities (ROS/WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1238 as amended by the 2/25/25 Oncor comments passes with one vote opposed and one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT comments from March 11 suggested tabling the item.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Joe Dan Wilson of Golden Spread Electric Cooperative sponsored NPRR1238, stressing its importance for compliance, reliability, and economic reasons.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">An impact analysis was proposed as a compromise to address both the urgency and ERCOT's concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about loads being unable to disconnect due to compliance requirements during load shed events.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on the potential economic hardships due to compliance requirements and the necessity for a stop-gap solution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Risk of conflict with Senate Bill 6 if it passes, which could lead to retooling the resolution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was a motion to endorse NPRR1238 for an impact analysis while being cautious not to proceed past TAC if conflicts with legislation arise.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Motion carried with some opposition and abstention, emphasizing operational concerns and uncertainty around potential legislative changes.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRSNPRR1238Ballot.png" /></div> <h4>8.08 - Not discussed</h4> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=309c50ac-b4be-4b40-b25e-f66b05c7be22">▶️</a>8.09 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is working on a license agreement with Lancium and requests for the item to remain tabled to finalize the agreement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Once finalized, ERCOT intends to publish the license agreement publicly for stakeholder review.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There's uncertainty about making the draft license agreement public before execution, although there is a hope to gather stakeholder feedback.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a question about whether Cholla intends to withdraw the NPRR if the license satisfies their concerns. The expectation is for Cholla to withdraw if satisfied.</li> </ul> <h4>8.10 - Not Discussed</h4> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=0daecddb-4614-4a13-a2c2-eff318540f37">▶️</a>8.11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1264 has been tabled with comments since the last PRS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMS endorsed NPRR1264 with Constellation comments from February 11.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Vistra suggested extending the useful life of certificates from three to ten years, introducing more flexibility and competitiveness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about the management of the tracking system in case ERCOT decides to sunset it; a third party might take over if necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff, TEBA, supports tabling for one month and sees no downside to extending the banking period in a willing buyer/willing seller market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric argues that ERCOT should maintain a voluntary market for EACs beyond the REC program, as there are benefits, such as additional generator payments and participation in incentive programs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">More comments are encouraged to be submitted for the extension of the program.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The item will remain tabled to gather more comments and continue the discussion next month.</li> </ul> <h4>8.12 - 8.14</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=5b066c7a-9085-4170-916e-852dfa3fb22a">▶️</a>8.15 - NPRR1268, RTC – Modification of Ancillary Service Demand Curves (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to grant NPRR1268 Urgent status; to recommend approval of NPRR1268 as amended by the 3/7/25 Hunt Energy Network comments; and to forward to TAC NPRR1268 passed unanimously with one abstention.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Andrew Reimers: NPRR1268 proposes a new methodology for breaking up AORDC into individual ASCDs, addressing cost and balance issues between ECRS and non-spin products.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Dave Maggio: Clarified that Hunt Energy's recent comments are focused on adding clarity to existing formulas, and ERCOT has no concerns with these comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Blake Holt: Requested clarification on reserve level definition within the formula, confirming it's based on historical data and not an explicit reserve level.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katie Rich: Requested a separate ballot for NPRR1268 due to its close tie to NPRR1269, expressing intention to abstain.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRSNPR1268Ballot.png" /></div> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=e62c9c92-0f2e-4161-ae3a-52e6fe51621b">▶️</a>8.16 - NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to grant NPRR1269 Urgent status; to recommend approval of NPRR1269 as amended by the 3/4/25 TCPA comments; and to forward to TAC NPRR1269 and the 1/28/25 Impact Analysis passed with 86% in favor and 3 no’s, all from the consumer segment.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Initial motion to grant NPRR1269 urgent status using ERCOT comments failed with 85% opposition and 5 abstentions.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRSNPRR1269ballot.png" /></div> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225NPRR1269FailedBallot.png" /></div> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=c780d382-12e3-4a21-b3cf-f1c3c46bd6d9">▶️</a> NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues TCPA comments</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Michele Richmond for TCPA emphasized the importance of procuring necessary reserves through the competitive market rather than through out of market actions like RUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The principles behind the comments have been discussed for over a year at RTC+B and with the commission, and they are designed to align with directives given to ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shane Thomas from Shell highlighted the impact of adding a floor to ASDC on proxy offers, raising the proxy offer to $14.99, which alters the market dynamics for non-spin resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff raised concerns about changing proposals shortly before the market goes live, advocating for assessing the market's real-time performance post-implementation before making alterations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Michele Richmond questioned the consistency in supporting NPRR1268 while opposing changes in NPRR1269, highlighting that changes do not delay implementation according to ERCOT assessments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Brian Sams sought clarity on ERCOT's potential RUC actions if reserves fall short, discussing the ERCOT process in such situations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio from ERCOT acknowledged a likelihood of increased RUC activity due to ASDC changes and planned to illustrate this concern in a presentation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew objected to characterizing TCPA's comments as consistently argued, noting his participation and observations in RTC discussions since September.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Michele stressed that TCPA has consistently advocated against out-of-market actions and for aligning market operations with grid management procedures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich highlighted a past Vistra presentation that supported aligning market signals with operational practices and called for further insight into the $15 floor analysis.</li> </ul> <h5><a href="/sharing/?token=2f9fcd36-4d7c-4180-9691-6e5bcd81bd66">▶️</a> NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues TIEC Comments</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TIEC filed comments on ERCOT's March third comments about the proxy offer floor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about ERCOT's current proxy offer floor set at 2,000 causing price distortions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TIEC suggests a proxy offer floor of $15, higher than most ancillary service offers.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TIEC opposes TCPA's comments as they fundamentally change the ancillary service demand curve.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about TCPA's proposal potentially adding $100 million in costs according to the IMM.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT disagrees with the IMM's estimate of cost impacts, sees them as more minimal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about the $15 cap and its effects on various proxy offers for ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shane Thomas suggests considering both TIEC and TCPA comments for potential amendments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Procedural challenges in harmonizing different sets of comments due to distinct nature.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cory Philips explains procedural aspects of proposing amendments and voting processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement on the need for further discussion and potentially creating a composite set of comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the procedural steps for voting on amendments or new motions drawn from TIEC and TCPA inputs.</li> </ul> <h5><a href="/sharing/?token=6049da45-6afe-4a5e-9491-78f202eddc30">▶️</a> NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues IMM Comments</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew Reimers initiated discussion by addressing the timeliness of TCPA's comments, focusing specifically on ASDC floors in DAM and RTM, separate from concerns about out-of-market actions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew appreciates Shane's points on nonspin and ECRS, suggesting the 95% percentile capacity EAS plan bid is under $15, which is suitable for those products, but RS and REG have higher percentiles.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew's comments are more concerned with the ASDC floor in DAM and RTM rather than RUC alone, seeking more evidence on the problems of RUC not producing sufficient reserves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on cost suggests that ASDC prices are set at $15 only when AS plans are short on reserves, impacting increasing costs substantially during such shortages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on the impact of shortage pricing reveals higher costs in a year like 2023 experiencing scarcity, with costs exceeding $100 million, contrasting with lower costs in less tight years like 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shane suggests 2023 was an outlier due to ECRS issues, and impacts on AS prices affect mainly the nonspin portion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Debate over implications of ASDC floors and proxy offers, arguing floors influence market participation and self-commitment incentives, with disagreements on cost implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on resource adequacy clarifies the change aims at market participation, not directly increasing generator revenue or leading to new construction.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Debate over the adequacy of offers below $15 and whether system shortages imply sufficient offers available for clearing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proxy offers discussed with concerns about encouraging participants to submit genuine offers instead of relying on proxy ones, particularly for NSRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration of stronger demand curves in out-of-market tools compared to competitive wholesale markets.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Andrew questions RUCing to meet AS plans without sufficient evidence of ongoing forecast errors, suggesting it's probabilistically incorrect and stakeholders should scrutinize such actions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Conclusion indicated a time constraint, with ERCOT expected to present comments for further discussion.</li> </ul> <h5><a href="/sharing/?token=fab731bc-d7bd-4f33-90d4-416c556bf8a3">▶️</a> NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues - ERCOT Presentation</h5> <a href="/storage/docs/2025/03/NPRR1269-Impact-of-the-Proposed-ASDC-Floors-ERCOT-PRS-031225.pdf">NPRR1269-Impact-of-the-Proposed-ASDC-Floors-ERCOT-PRS-031225.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT had filed comments at NPRR1269 to codify numbers for previously variable parameters, focusing on ANSI service demand curves for RUC and ancillary service proxy offer floor parameters.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion centered on the effect of implementing a $15 per megawatt per hour floor on the demand curves for RUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio explained the rationale behind selecting the $15 floor, citing test cases using RTC RUC software.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ryan King with ERCOT emphasized the need for RUC optimization to meet the AS plan if capacity is available.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff questioned the practical need for the discussed changes, citing historical lack of RUC for ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Shane Thomas from Shell noted that RUC is fundamentally changing its approach to ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave discussed the potential issues with current day-ahead and real-time pricing, suggesting that a $15 per megawatt floor could be modest and beneficial.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several examples and test cases were presented, illustrating how different demand curves and floor implementations could impact pricing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich asked about the potential total cost impact, which Dave didn’t have immediately available.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were varied opinions on the necessity and impact of implementing the $15 floor, with concerns about both operational and pricing impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Dave Maggio concluded with an emphasis on the need for the $15 floor to address concerns with potential increases in RUC behavior.</li> </ul> <h5><a href="/sharing/?token=8c1b05fc-1433-48f8-9c9f-ce59736745b3">▶️</a> NPRR1269, RTC+B Three Parameters Policy Issues - Commission Staff</h5> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Harika Basaran with PUC staff discussed engaging stakeholders earlier in the process for NPRRs with significant policy impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis was made that PUC staff speaks on behalf of staff, not the commission, and the final decision rests with the commissioners.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Process for monitoring stakeholders was outlined, including tracking revision requests and regular calls with ERCOT and IMM.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Thanks were extended to IMM and Andrew for the new proposal, specifically for not altering the curve shape but improving pricing outcomes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Disappointment expressed over TCPA filing comments under a different NPRR, which has now been addressed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Chris Brown, commission staff, addressed two open items - proxy offer floors and extending ASDC floors to real-time.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement with broader consensus that a proxy floor of 2,000 is unjustified, and a $15 value can minimize price formation impacts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Support indicated for ERCOT's judgment on market floors, although additional early analysis would be preferred.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=ba3d7af4-9814-4f01-ad4c-2ce376ec38c8">▶️</a>8.17 - NPRR1270, Additional Revisions Required for Implementation of RTC (PRS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to grant NPRR1270 Urgent status; to recommend approval of NPRR1270 as submitted; and to forward to TAC NPRR1270 and the 1/28/25 Impact Analysis added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1270 includes several clarifications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion focused on the risk of proxy offers and a design element in the RTC protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Original design allowed automatic qualification of resources for certain services, which was identified as a gap by the task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The loophole was closed, requiring explicit qualification for services as with other ancillary services.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No significant discussion or comments were filed on this change.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Urgency on NPRR1270 was granted as submitted.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=a2c51dfa-a9de-44c9-810e-ec461ab5f617">▶️</a>8.18 - NPRR1271, Revision to User Security Administrator and Digital Certificates Opt-out Eligibility (WMS)</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1271 as submitted added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">WMS had previously endorsed NPRR1271 earlier in the month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal is from ERCOT regarding changes to user security administrator and digital certificate opt-out eligibility.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4>8.19 - 8.21</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=0812b8c0-2228-407e-a7c5-37debec99106">▶️</a>9 - Review of Revision Request Language (Vote)</h3> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=aa3e96f7-559d-41dc-86df-bbfa84104a42">▶️</a>9.1 - NPRR1272, Voltage Support at Private Use Networks</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1272 and refer the issue to ROS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1272 discussed for the first time, as previously introduced by Melissa last month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">John Hubbard supports tabling NPRR1272 and referring it to ROS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Goff raised a question regarding power factor billing tied to reactive requirements and its financial implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There is uncertainty about whether funds collected from power factor billing would reinvest in reactive support.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katie Rich mentioned the need for TSPs to share data to aid the process.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=47fc420c-55ed-40a6-9334-2d0c65905983">▶️</a>9.2 - NPRR1273, Appropriate Accounting for ESRs in PRC Calculation</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1273 was addressed earlier in the meeting.</li> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=7a8afc37-65f0-4bfb-84eb-154a1ae16d8e">▶️</a>9.3 - NPRR1274, RPG Estimated Capital Cost Thresholds of Proposed Transmission Projects</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1274 and refer the issue to ROS added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Presented by Robert Collin from ERCOT, focusing on increasing cost estimate thresholds for RPG tier categorization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Basis for proposing cost estimate increases is a 26% rise in CPI since June 2018.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Katie Rich and other participants suggested referring the matter to ROS for further analysis rather than limiting the decision to RPG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Martha Henson raised a concern about whether the CPI is fully representative of utility project cost inflation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Suggestion to include additional factors like right of way costs in the analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Eric Goff recommended deferring a decision on raising the threshold for another year due to heightened scrutiny of transmission costs in the state.</li> </ul> </ul> <h4><a href="/sharing/?token=6b62b29b-18af-4296-be0c-9c0cdf2b707c">▶️</a>9.4 - NPRR1275, Expansion of Qualifying Pipeline Definition for Firm Fuel Supply Service in Phase 3</h4> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1275 as submitted passed with 96% in favor and 1 no from the Independent Generator segment.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1275 aims to reintroduce the definition of firm fuel supply service qualifying pipeline previously recommended by TAC but not adopted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The amendment intends to be approved in time for the August RFP for the upcoming firm fuel supply service season.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on deadline flexibility for NPRR1275 approval, with Matt Arth indicating it doesn’t need approval today and could still meet August RFP if approved by April PRS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Vistra raised two concerns: need for clear 'curtailment' definition, and suggesting a separation in pricing for on-site vs. off-site gas to mitigate risks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill Barnes disagreed with Vistra’s points, stating the current curtailment definitions through TAC title 16 part 1 chapter 7 are sufficient.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Bill then emphasized that the intention of NPRR1275 was to increase competitiveness and lower costs by expanding participant eligibility.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation to approve NPRR1275 was made due to the extensive prior vetting process, aiming at contracting gas partners promptly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The idea of using split pricing discussed as a potential separate issue to not delay current process.</li> </ul> </ul> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRSNPRR1275ballot.png" /></div> <h3>10 - 11 </h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=1afb38b6-a6f7-40b5-bf76-2d0dbd46d1e1">▶️</a>12 - Combo Ballot (Vote)</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> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRScomboitems.png" /></div> <div class="news-image-container"><img src="/storage/docs/2025/03/031225PRScombo.png" /></div> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c070a6d3-e93a-48c1-8301-e473c841f1ea">▶️</a>13 - Adjourn</h3>