Frame

Meeting Summary - 09/12/24 PRS Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
09/16/2024

<img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/20240912%20PRS%20Hero.png" width="870" height="653" /> <a href="/sharing/?token=2ec376c1-5a59-4f85-96f4-cf12869371f4">1</a> - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman <a href="/sharing/?token=cf4423c9-f2af-44f8-b1e6-0a883afd0519">2</a> - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to to approve the August 8, 2024, PRS Meeting Minutes as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=9f423c00-d903-4605-99db-3822ddc466f4">3</a> - TAC Update - Diana Coleman <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two proposed revision requests, NPRR1221 and NPRR1236, were approved by TAC last month.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=aab27aa6-5054-48f6-8820-50dc64d97fce">4</a> - Project Update - Troy Anderson Troy Anderson presented the monthly project <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/10/prs_september_2024_project_update.pptx">update</a> from ERCOT portfolio management. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No discussion on aging revision requests this month; focus shifted to impact analysis accuracy over the past few years.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">August release deployed five items; upcoming September release scheduled for the 26th focusing on RIOO updates and NOGRR208 integration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Nine CDR reports will have columns added and field names changed, as detailed in the August 30 market notice.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent market notice on NPRR1205 (credit rating type information), first half went live on July 1.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">SCR799 still in planning; expected to go live in Q4.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Review of impact analysis accuracy covering 26 projects with 47 revision requests over the past three years:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">14 projects met the cost range, 9 exceeded, and 3 were below the expected cost.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Highlighted significant outliers: Example - Project cost exceeded estimates by 62%.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Projects sometimes fall short of estimations due to unpredictable factors, especially with new initiatives AKA 'Greenfield' works.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Example: NPRR1108 came under budget due to quicker-than-expected turnaround.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Impact Analysis duration accuracy discussed: more items completed faster than expected.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Notable outlier in duration: NPRR902, which ran 18.5 months instead of 6-9 months.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to analyze FTE projection accuracy in future reports.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion for future reports: show a graph line to represent overall under/overage in time and budget.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on understanding cumulative accuracy and potential methods for graphical representation.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=97b1eb14-6ae5-47ee-85ff-727d71011239">5</a> - NPRR1247 - Urgency Vote - Diana Coleman Motion to table NPRR1247 and refer the issue to ROS added to combo ballot. Overview: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The NPRR1247 is for incorporating the congestion cost savings test required by SB1281 and economic evaluation of transmission projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT hired E3 to survey best industry practices and recommended measuring from the load cost reduction perspective.</li> </ul> Comments and Concerns: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes raised concerns about the urgency and lack of detail in the protocol.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's Matt Arthur explained the urgency related to compliance with PUC substantive rule §25.101.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Melissa Trevino and others echoed concerns over transparency and detail.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Alex Miller inquired about linking relevant revision requests for clarity, mentioning PGRR117.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich highlighted the need for further review by ROS and PLWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several stakeholders echoed discomfort with the urgency status, emphasizing the need for detailed documentation and transparency.</li> </ul> Procedural Clarifications: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Matt Arthur clarified that without NPRR1247's approval, ERCOT cannot recommend projects under the congestion cost test for board approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Prabhu Gnanam from ERCOT emphasized the importance of this criteria for subsequent discussions and changes.</li> </ul> Next Steps: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to table NPRR1247 and refer it to ROS on a normal timeline.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus to refer the item to ROS without urgency, pending further discussions and transparency improvements.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=f7233245-8239-4a4f-ae35-4a86e284bb0e">6</a> - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman <a href="/sharing/?token=6df51e5a-5115-4e31-aa8d-670d70387e96">6.1</a> - NPRR1188, Implement Nodal Dispatch and Energy Settlement for Controllable Load Resources <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about potential EPS meter disrupting prior arrangements between generator and load.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement from ERCOT and Oncor on language changes, aiming to move forward to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of a recommended priority of 2026 and rank of 390 based on August 8 PRS report and June 27 impact analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issues discussed regarding the need for action by PRS, with an emphasis on either a motion or second to proceed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Decision to take a break to draft language edits and reconvene after 10 minutes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement reached on desktop edits including required EPS meter installation with CLR consent.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion made to approve NPRR1188 with desktop edits, followed by second by Melissa Trevino.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/20240912%20PRS%201188%20Ballot.png" width="870" height="774" /> <a href="/sharing/?token=01e062ff-d9df-4040-a109-0df0f50a87be">6.2</a> - NPRR1237, Retail Market Qualification Testing Requirements <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 8/8/24 PRS Report and 8/27/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1237 added to combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=246a20bc-e7c2-4896-b3da-47a883e5b98d">6.3</a> - NPRR1244, Related to NOGRR263, Clarification of Controllable Load Resource Primary Frequency Response Responsibilities <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse and forward to TAC the 8/8/24 PRS Report as revised by PRS and the 9/6/24 Impact Analysis for NPRR1244 with a recommended priority of 2025 and rank of 4530 added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Troy provided an update on NPRR1244, noting its importance and potential scheduling challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Priority Power initiated the discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The priority and rank recommendation for NPRR1244 took into consideration the EMS impact and the ongoing RTC project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Troy suggested seeking PRS input on prioritization to avoid jeopardizing the RTC project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion included setting a tentative prioritization for 2025 with the ability to adjust if risks to the RTC project were identified.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Michael Jewell on behalf of Priority Power emphasized the goal of making more CLRs schedule dispatchable and supported the tentative prioritization approach.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was confirmed that NPRR1244 is not technically dependent on NPRR1188.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=835aa6a9-90b2-46e7-9dd0-e80fef41b64e">7</a> - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman 7.1 - NPRR956, Designation of Providers of Transmission Additions <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> 7.2 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=161de7de-3e28-45dd-9b8a-d187a45b3bbd">7.3</a> - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/20240912%20PRS%201180%20Ballot.png" width="870" height="764" />   Follow-Up Questions: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern about the distinction between uppercase and lowercase 'load' and possible confusion in the future.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement that the issue should be addressed for consistency and accuracy in protocols.</li> </ul> Future Action Items: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS to revisit and vote on NPRR1180 in early October.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PLWG to address the terminology issue of uppercase and lowercase 'load'.</li> </ul> 7.4 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> 7.5 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> 7.6 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=c29b20f2-be07-4b14-abf8-9458f9d0f5e3">7.7</a> - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Amy Loften presented the <a href="https://ercot-control-docs.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/11/mp-guide-for-suggesting-changes.pptx">MP Guide</a> for website changes</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from market participants on digital channels is desired, with established methods including protocols, system change requests, and other binding documents.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Displays and dashboards feedback should not use the system change request process as they are not considered systems.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Digital channels discussed include ERCOT.com, MIS, the mobile app, and public information on ERCOT.com.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A redesign effort for the ERCOT.com website and the mobile app is ongoing, with feedback mechanisms in place via webmastercott.com and userexperienceercot.com.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A proposed electronic form process for dashboard feedback was introduced to separate dashboard requests from system change requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Questions and concerns about the differentiation between systems and dashboards, and whether ERCOT needs veto power over dashboard requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The discussion included the appropriateness of the current process for handling such requests and implications for the demand response monitor.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestions were made to create a formalized process for dashboard requests that is distinct from the existing system change request process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was mention of NPRR1226 continuing under the current NPRR process until a new process is developed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about whether the demand response monitor process was clear and comprehensible regarding defining systems and protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A suggestion was made for creating an 'other binding document' with a distinct change control process from SCR’s for dashboard requests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The need for transparency and providing feedback to market participants was emphasized.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was proposed that a public document trail should exist to show how feedback is handled, while some participants expressed hesitancy about quick process changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's stance was clarified that the SCR process has been used successfully in the past for similar changes and it may be open for modification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Floyd Trefny's proposal for the demand response monitor involved using state estimator load points to indicate demand response without representing the aggregate value of real-time demand response.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT would need to identify and aggregate appropriate state estimator load points and ensure confidentiality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A concern about potential inaccuracies in demand response data due to load variations and operational issues was raised.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration for accurate, meaningful data in evaluating demand response was highlighted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion included the importance of disseminating more real-time information to market participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus was to continue conversations on NPRR1226 with no immediate motion or activity needed.</li> </ul> 7.8 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1"> Not Discussed</li> </ul> 7.9 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=22d9ef61-37ba-435a-8d63-35d570c868a5">7.9.1</a> - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS endorsed NOGRR264 this week.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments filed in support of NPRR1235 were considered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Goff suggested ERCOT provide an estimate on the amount of reserve service they plan to buy to understand its market impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie Rich requested the item remain tabled, to be revisited at a special SAWG meeting on September 27.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus to keep the item tabled for another month and revisit next month.</li> </ul> 7.9.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4b7f2f96-8475-4222-8199-5572d0edbb64">7.9.3</a> - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1239 as submitted added to combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=8acaddad-fa80-479d-a8b8-fe26ddfbb55b">7.9.4</a> - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1240 as submitted added to combo ballot.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=a90e2459-922b-421e-a61e-c3b0724f16e9">7.9.5</a> - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee) WMS filed some comments this morning asking us to keep this table so this conversation can keep going at WMWG. Is there <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">WMS filed some comments requesting to keep the table for ongoing discussion at WMWG.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=f493153b-dca9-40cc-8d9e-60ba758dbabd">7.9.7</a> NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concern about notice provided to market participants regarding ERCOT's disclosure of confidential information to major regulatory agencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issue specifically with pre-disclosure notice to CFTC as it could violate a CFTC order.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential modification to post-disclosure notice discussed but deemed still problematic.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Infrequent disclosure of information to CFTC noted, addressing primary concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to file comments removing the CFTC language edit and restoring disclosure requirements for NERC, FERC, and cyber security agencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Oncor has been in conversations with the sponsors of NPRR1243 to address some concerns, which will be discussed through comments next month.</li> </ul> 7.9.8 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> 7.9.9 - SCR827, Grid Conditions Graph Addition for Operating Reserve Demand Curve (ORDC) Level <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not Discussed</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=44c2418d-52c8-4cef-b858-b1fea39ffe9b">8</a> - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman <a href="/sharing/?token=4ca76a71-419c-4b04-b2b8-e8a2e745e9a6">8.1</a> - NPRR1245, Additional Clarifying Revisions to Real-Time Co-Optimization <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1245 as amended by the 9/5/24 ERCOT comments as revised by PRS added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1245 involves revisions to protocols based on the RTC+B project, including some minor desktop edits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Additional clarifications are needed due to changes since the passing of previous RTC NPRRs and other changes layered on top.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Most of the changes have been discussed with the RTC+B task force in multiple meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent comments were filed earlier this month, containing two main types of changes: related to NPRR1015 and NPRR1093 regarding Ancillary Services, and settlement equations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No questions have been raised by the task force about these changes up to this point.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A desktop edit was found that changes subparagraph c parameters from 2000 to 3000 for the new minimum contingency level, aligning it with the formula language above.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=dedbb472-fd43-4807-a039-e23e3a13d6b8">8.2</a> - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1246 added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on language alignment for energy storage resources with the single model era.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1246 is similar to previous NPRR1245 and eliminates the combo model.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Important for NPRR1246 to go live with RTC+B.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initial posting was made at the end of July and discussed in RTC+B meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Subcommittees were asked to review NPRR1246.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Other related documents include NOGRR and PGRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need time to work through comments and address some inadvertent errors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ROS suggested tabling the four revision requests and reviewing at the RTC+B meeting before deciding in October.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> 8.3 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Not discussed.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=25dee950-86b2-48bf-af99-ebb319904578">8.4</a> - NPRR1248, Correction to NPRR1197, Optional Exclusion of Load from Netting at EPS Metering Facilities which Include Resources <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1248 as submitted added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1248 addresses missing revisions from NPRR1197.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The missing revisions were due to an oversight where the last page was not included in the February PRS report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">As a result, some revisions from Oncor comments were omitted from multiple reports: PRS, TAC, Board, and PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1248 aims to incorporate the missed changes to ensure the intended clarifications of NPRR1197 are complete.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The correction is described as a 'cleanup language' and has no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a suggestion to recommend approval of NPRR1248 as submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The participants agreed to move forward with the approval.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=c1ead70c-a864-43ad-9d1d-eea868c6f407">8.5</a> - NPRR1249, Publication of Shift Factors for All Active Transmission Constraints in the RTM Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1249 as submitted added to combo ballot. Discussion Points: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Steve Reedy Affiliation: CIMVIEW Consulting Key Points:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT publishes shift factors for the real-time market (RTM) only for constraints that bind in the auction.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Synvue is proposing ERCOT publish all shift factors for all active constraints, not just the binding ones.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This would help companies like Synvue rerun SCADA and perform shadow constraint competitiveness tests.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Necessary for the proposed NPRR that mitigates batteries.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A relatively simple language change is needed to include all active constraints in the same reports.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Bill Barnes Affiliation: NRG Key Points:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Supports more transparency and data access.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasizes the importance of assessing the impact analysis, which requires approval.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Blake Holt Affiliation: LCRA Key Points:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Echoes Bill's comments and agrees with Steve's reasoning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Seeks clarity on the potential size of the report if all active transmission constraints are published.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Speaker: Dave Maggio Affiliation: ERCOT Key Points:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The report size could potentially double or triple.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Reports are typically per SCADA interval, which would increase file sizes but keep them focused.</li> </ul> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4f986589-3691-4312-adc6-237803dedd70">8.6</a> - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1250 and refer the issue to WMS added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT introduced NPRR1250 aimed at implementing HB1500 for the retirement of the RPS program.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification needed on the implementation date, intended for September 1, 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about premature implementation and lack of clarity in the filing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about maintaining the confidentiality of transmission-level customer information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposal to refer NPRR1250 to WMS for further discussion due to existing comments and concerns.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=528bdb08-11a2-40d9-8319-cebd2211cbae">8.7</a> - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1250 and refer the issue to WMS added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1251 updates the firm fuel replacement cost recovery process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification that QSEs representing farm fuel supply generators can restore fuel services with existing inventories.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Allows generators to use large storage tanks to provide available fuel services immediately rather than waiting for new purchases.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Addition of two compensation options: purchase new fuel (ERCOT reimburses costs) or use existing inventory (payments based on fuel oil price index plus transportation costs).</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposed changes aim to expedite service availability during disruptions but may not necessarily reduce overall restocking costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some members suggest tabling and referring the proposal to WMS and WMWG for further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification given on restocking approval timings and conditions, particularly towards the end of the season.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Flexibility in the proposal allows generators to avoid repurchasing fuel if existing stocks can be utilized efficiently.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=ce8c6976-93b0-446d-b1d3-7f5acf71d869">8.8</a> - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements Motion to table NPRR1252 added to combo ballot. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT's proposal NPRR1252 includes three main changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change 1: ERCOT proposes to remove the pre-notice requirement for disclosing ECEII (Electricity Critical Energy Infrastructure Information) or protected information to vendors. <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Vendors sign non-disclosure agreements meeting Section 1 of the protocols.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Vendors undergo a risk management assessment survey reviewed by ERCOT's cybersecurity department.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Vendors' employees requiring access privileges must pass a NERC CIP background check.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Removal of pre-notice requirement for market participants providing ECEII to their vendors.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change 2: Addition of a new entity type: ERCOT research and innovation partners (RNI). <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">These partners collaborate with ERCOT to improve system and market operations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Pre-notice is not required if ECEII is provided to RNI partners.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change 3: Clarification and updating of notice requirements.  <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Allow email and market notice as acceptable forms of notice.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="3">Elimination of requirement to follow up email notices with mailed notices.</li> </ul> </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Venkat Tirupati emphasized the importance of RNI partners in addressing grid transformation challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RNI partners such as universities and national labs will follow stringent cyber and risk management controls.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">General agreement on the proposal's benefits but calls for more time to contemplate definitions and implications.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Martha Henson (Oncor): Clarity needed on the distinction between PI (Protected Information) and ECEII, and related notice requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consensus to table NPRR1252 for a month to further consider proposals and ensure balanced notice provisions.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=c9efb499-9580-43a3-bbe4-3180dbebfa2b">9</a> - Other Business - Diana Coleman <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Heads up about the next two open meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about possible overlap between open meetings and PRS scheduled meetings.</li> </ul> <a href="/sharing/?token=4377eba7-3947-489e-b619-0db1b911f26b">10</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/20240912PRS%20Combo%20Details.png" width="868" height="264" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/09/20240912PRS%20Combo.png" width="874" height="780" /> <a href="/sharing/?token=ce86b391-8375-47b8-9aeb-8fd81c701416">11</a> - Future Meetings - Diana Coleman <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possible future meetings on October 17 and November 14.</li> </ul> 12 - Adjourn <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Meeting adjourned.</li> </ul>