Frame

Meeting Summary - 10/30/24 TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
10/31/2024

<h2><img src="/storage/docs/2024/10/10302024TACHeroPhoto.png" width="862" height="644" /></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0ca6ad64-2f33-4bfe-a233-06a756dfe86b">1</a> - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=20966042-b817-4816-85dc-cfbbafd18994">2</a> - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the September 19, 2024 TAC meeting minutes as presented added to combo ballot</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=41dcedb1-316a-4e57-a9ec-783ab520e90e">3</a> - Meeting Updates - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9ad9c687-e607-4ccd-80c4-d901b3ab72ee">3.1</a> - September/October Board/PUCT Meetings</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Multiple meetings have occurred since the September TAC meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT board meetings took place on October 9th and 10th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">All revision requests except NPRR1190 were approved at the October board meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 was remanded and is on the current agenda for further discussion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">PUC open meetings were held on September 26, October 3, and October 24.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">All revision requests in front of the Commission were approved in the September 26 PUC meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two discussion items were highlighted in the update agenda item.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=01a7fb81-2426-49bb-a929-b607d29271b8">3.1.1</a> - Subcommittee Reporting to the Board</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">At the October board meeting, a longer TAC report with more information was well received.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Efforts are being made to improve communication and transparency to the board and the commission.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The October board meeting included highlights from all subcommittees and task forces, not just TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed direction is for subcommittees and task forces to highlight contentious items before board voting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification that not all news needs to be contentious, but highlights of consensus and improvements are also valued.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No input was received during the meeting regarding the reporting strategy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Continued collaboration with subcommittee and task force leadership will happen offline.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=b2477f14-010e-4f2d-8c13-cca3863a36a0">3.1.2</a> - NOGRR245 Update</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Commission has approved NOGRR245, and it was bifurcated, indicating a need for a phase two.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The remaining details of the exemption process are to be addressed through a PUC rulemaking instead of continuing under NOGRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A PUC-selected team is collaborating with ERCOT staff to define the rulemaking process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The new rule will establish scenarios and criteria under which entities can request exemptions from reliability rules.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT will propose mitigation strategies when exemptions are possible, to maintain grid reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A process for entities to appeal ERCOT's decisions will be included, entailing a contested case process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The rulemaking is in its early stages, with expectations for robust written comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The aim is to adopt the rule by early spring to align with upcoming filing requirements.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=f815a11b-abd4-4552-a21a-6dfd394b1cc0">4</a> - Board Remand of NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs - Vote</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The board remanded NPRR1190, which was previously voted through TAC in June and tabled by the board in August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The item is being presented as a reintroduction to TAC, considering further action needs to be taken.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The approach proposed is to use the current meeting as an educational session and defer the vote to November for a substantive vote.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Any decisions made by November would go to the December board meeting, aligning with the existing timeline.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion proposed to table NPRR1190 for further discussion with an aim to refine the scope and address Board concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1190 carries with 29 in favor and one opposed.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/10/10302024TAC1190Ballot.png" width="873" height="865" /> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A request was made for any alternative proposals to be filed a week before the November meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on NPRR1190 is to continue in the November meeting.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=24570a0c-1eb6-4c6c-a473-10ba01eb5a0d">4.1</a> - ERCOT Presentation - Austin Rosel</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/NPRR1190%20October%20TAC%20ERCOT%20v3.pdf">NPRR1190 October TAC ERCOT v3.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Austin Rosel presented the background on the current protocol language of NPRR1190.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 modifies existing policy set by NPRR649, originally put in place to compensate QSEs for losses from high dispatch limit (HDL) overrides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The policy originated from a PUC case involving Odessa and subsequent settlement with ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR649, initially called the "lost opportunity payment," was finalized in 2016 to cover financial losses due to HDL overrides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 extends the coverage to municipalities and entities with both generation and load under the same QSE without requiring a DAM obligation or bilateral contract.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The TAC recommended approval of NPRR1190, but it faced opposition from the consumer segment, leading to its remand by the ERCOT Board following PUC's comments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion involved ensuring fair compensation for entities affected by HDL overrides, highlighting differences in contractual language and obligations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Austin Energy brought this to light through an ADR process, emphasizing inconsistencies in compensating entities without paper contracts.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=21eb434d-fc41-4b91-8655-fe40c501473f">4.2</a> - WMS/WMWG Discussion Summary - Eric Blakey</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/NPRR%201190%20Timeline%20to%20TAC%20-%20Oct%2030%202024.pdf">NPRR 1190 Timeline to TAC - Oct 30 2024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eric Blakey from PEC presented a history of the NPRR proposal concerning financial loss recovery due to manual high dispatch limit overrides filed by Austin Energy and other utilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal aimed to recover losses during reduced power output and stimulate discussions about market participation and stakeholder concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several meetings were held from September to December with stakeholders' reviews and alternative approach proposals.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Residential consumer comments suggested narrowing NPRR1190's scope for clarity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reliant proposed edits to include QSEs in the scope, highlighting burdensome proof of contract issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Financial harm through ERCOT's overrides was regularly discussed, focusing on limiting excessive use while considering cost relief.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions about payment alternatives and consideration of NPRR1190 led to a vote with some opposing votes from consumers and abstentions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There were multiple instances of abstention and opposition from consumer segments and other stakeholders during the approval process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Impact analysis indicated no significant financial or budget implications from the proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions continued up to October with consumers expressing concerns about eligibility expansion to various entities without contracts.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal and its numerous meetings and discussions were acknowledged as valuable for informing TAC and board decisions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No significant financial impact was noted historically, however, instances like Winter Storm Uri were cited as potential concerns.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f890c254-cb43-4bcc-a557-7c3e72b103c6">4.3</a> - Consumer Presentation - Consumer Presenter</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Opposition to NPRR1190 due to it being inconsistent with nodal market principles and rewarding over scheduling that leads to consumer subsidies for inefficient hedging.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT market's adoption of nodal dispatch aimed to prevent paying for undelivered scheduled power, emphasizing fairness and risk of delivery on market participants.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on confidentiality issues with transmission system information that affect generator operations and potential penalties.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns over frequent occurrences of side payments to generators for reliability dispatches, aiming to make price the primary motivation for actions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarifications sought on the concept of 'over scheduling' and its impact on pricing and power delivery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Debate over HDL override payments, justified as necessary for reliability constraints that SCED cannot manage.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Issues regarding the expandability of current protocols to better reflect system pricing challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Calls to avoid expanding side payments that could undermine market efficiency, emphasizing necessary preplanning for contingencies.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=4f66c2ba-e354-4088-ad28-0127fe5d0182">5</a> - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions - Ann Boren/ IMM</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/4-revision-request-summary-103024.pdf">4-revision-request-summary-103024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some requests tabled, but ERCOT supports all.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR264 still pending.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1235 has pending impacts; NPRR1180 revised IA no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1249 has a $25k-$45k impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Out of 10 requests, 7 are general system/process improvements, 1 is ERCOT board/PUC directive, 1 is regulatory, 1 fall is strategic plan objective 2.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">CFSG reviewed NPRRs; no credit implications found.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No formal response from IMM received regarding revision requests; IMM has no additional comments beyond earlier stakeholder process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">TAC requires IMM opinion; captured as no opinion unless comments were filed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Bill Barnes expressed preference to IMM ‘no opinion’ over 'pending' status.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification and consistency needed for IMM opinion reporting.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=aaab8f77-a142-458e-9883-26a6bc498b8c">6</a> - PRS Report - Vote - Diana Coleman</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/6.%20PRS%20Presentation%20to%20TAC%20103024.pdf"> PRS Presentation to TAC 103024.pdf</a> <ul> <li aria-level="1">Summary update on NPRR1247, with an outlined schedule for ROS and PRS endorsements to hit the December board meeting as requested by commission and ERCOT.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=9117ac7c-6532-44f3-b280-967529cbeb06">6.1</a> - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NPRR1180 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">IA between $2M and $2.4M</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1180 is sponsored by Oncor and involves revisions to commission rules on certification criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On September 12, PRS voted to recommend approval of NPRR1180 with amendments from the August 28 comments, with two abstentions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On October 17, it was unanimously voted to endorse and forward to TAC the September 12 PRS report and the October 16 IA .</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion occurred regarding the high costs and FTE requirements cited by ERCOT, leading to a revised IA for TAC consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Additional TCPA comments were also noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The related agenda item involves publication of shift factors for active transmission constraints, recommended for approval by PRS on September 12 and endorsed on October 17.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on NPRR1180 with revisions and stakeholder comments, especially regarding staffing and related legislation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about additional costs already being incurred by ERCOT, which were addressed in a revised document.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Mention of the need for transparent criteria for forecasting and planning related to large load growth to prevent unnecessary transmission build-out.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Request to table NPRR1180 is set for the combo ballot after extensive discussion and multiple participant inputs.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3f636583-6040-4c7a-9c9b-1cbcdbec4d53">6.2</a> - NPRR1245, Additional Clarifying Revisions to Real-Time Co-Optimization</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1245 as recommended by PRS in the 10/17/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No impact IA</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal to put NPRR1245 into consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Focus on clarifying revisions related to Real-Time Co-Optimization.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=6b9f9ee1-2a85-41cb-b3da-a4c85daec100">6.3</a> - NPRR1248, Correction to NPRR1197, Optional Exclusion of Load from Netting at EPS Metering Facilities which Include Resources</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1248 as recommended by PRS in the 10/17/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No impact IA</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on NPRR1248 which addresses corrections to the previous NPRR1197.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Focus on the optional exclusion of load from netting at EPS (Electric Power Supply) metering facilities that include resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification on how this correction impacts current metering practices and requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Considerations for implementing these corrections to ensure accurate data representation at metering facilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Potential implications for resource operators and how they integrate with ERCOT’s systems.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f1ca81cf-e589-414b-9896-7e27f2a36c51">6.4</a> - NPRR1249, Publication of Shift Factors for All Active Transmission Constraints in the RTM</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1249 as recommended by PRS in the 10/17/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On September 12 PRS unanimously voted to recommend approval</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">On October 17 PRS endorsed and forwarded to TAC the September 12 PRS report and the October 15 IA with a priority of 2026 and rank of 4740.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=cbb29476-c02e-489f-976c-977433fb4574">7</a> - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on revision request tables at TAC.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=35c3835d-c114-4a60-941c-0085d68f88a3">7.1</a> - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">OBDRR052 is pending and will remain tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Awaiting NPRR1246 progress for any developments on OBDRR052.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=603fe21f-b989-4eaf-bad1-536ae01f9742">7.2</a> - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NOGRR264 can remain tabled.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Awaiting NPRR1235 resolution.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=ed9e88f9-7be8-4c83-b555-c2dfeba18e36">8</a> - OBDRR053, Alignment with NPRR1131, Controllable Load Resource Participation in Non-Spin, and Minor Clean-Ups - Vote - Nitika Mago</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of OBDRR053 as submitted and the 10/17/24 Impact Analysis added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">OBDRR053 is a follow-up to NPRR1131, which was implemented at the end of August.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Changes are needed to the OBD to support NPRR1131's implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">OBDRR053 aims for alignment and is said to have no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation for approval of OBDRR053 as submitted along with the October 17 impact analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">No objections were raised to include this item on the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=fac79a8a-29d8-4a4e-9a19-f66b3cd87523">9</a> - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RMS is supporting retail market participants for TexasSET 5.0 implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">MarkeTrak SCR817 changes are being prepared for implementation on the weekend of November 9th and 10th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A total of 7 market changes will be implemented that weekend.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent completion of flight 0924, a market test flight for testing current market participants for TexasSET 5.0, concluded yesterday at 5 pm.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=7164ad87-bb34-418e-96dd-bd9890b378f8">10</a> - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/ROS_Update_to_TAC%2010%2030%2024.pdf">ROS_Update_to_TAC 10 30 24.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Three voting items will be tabled until accompanying NPRRs are ready.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent ROS actions mentioned; PGRR107 related to NPRR1180 and IA is set to return next Thursday </li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The DWG procedure manual will come back next week with necessary language updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next ROS meeting scheduled for November 7th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katie encourages review of Luminant comments for PLWG changes; PLWG draft and ERCOT version of comments will be drafted for ROS consideration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Aim to finalize discussions next week with PLWG leadership and reach a decision.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Draft PLWG comments will be posted on the ROS meeting page along with update slides.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A compromise set of comments would be filed to the NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Suggestion to put the three voting items on a combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=074835a1-0dc9-4655-9f6b-cf7e6ee83dfc">10.1</a> - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table PGRR116 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Awaiting developments on NPRR1240.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3395b2cb-6965-447e-b3e4-9a4d1c363751">10.2 </a>- NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NOGRR266 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Action pending the outcome of NPRR1239.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=cfc516c5-3d79-434a-9fdc-c8bfe51ef2e0">10.3</a> - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to table NOGRR267 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NOGRR267 is awaiting NPRR1240 approval.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=3db269ab-7d58-4bb7-a9fe-7e8fbcf3411a">11</a> - WMS Report - Eric Blakey</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/WMS%20Report%20To%20TAC%20-%20October%2030%202024.pdf">WMS Report To TAC - October 30 2024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussions on CRR auction due to concerns about allocation incentivizing overconsumption; proposals to be voted on in December.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Updates on large flexible load interconnection now being presented to TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Possible need for an NPRR that memorializes reports in protocols while balancing data sharing and customer confidentiality.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Strong interest in more information on large load queues; discussion needed to balance privacy and insight.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Parking lot items being reviewed for efficiency; discussion on whether to retain the parking lot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two NPRRs tabled for discussion: NPRR1250 on RPS program termination and NPRR1251 on FFSS fuel replacement cost recovery.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1235 discussions consolidated at SAWG; continues to explore its relevance as an operational or resource adequacy tool.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholder process noted as essential in fleshing out varied opinions, emphasizing statutory requirements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Next WMS meeting scheduled for the 6th of the November.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2bb4569b-6704-403f-9306-e547597803fc">12</a> - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/TAC_CFSG_30Oct2024%20(002).SD.pdf">TAC_CFSG_30Oct2024 (002).SD.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on changes to estimate aggregate liability, collateral commitment, reporting enhancements, and regular credit updates.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Implementation of system changes in December 2024 due to NPRR1184 for managing interest received by ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Explanation and discussion of RFAF and DFAF in relation to EAL.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of automated notification systems for letters of credit and surety bond matters.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Austin Rosel, ERCOT, expressed an opinion that CFSG is coalescing around a proposal for changes to exposure calculations; looking for support but not fully resolved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A presentation to TAC suggested for broader discussion before implementation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Key changes in the EAL calculation focus on netting real-time and day-ahead liabilities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on forward adjustment factors and attempts to reduce volatility and over-collateralization during volatile market events.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposed framework aims to minimize collateral shortages while optimizing over-collateralization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns about higher volatility in TPEA addressed and focused on reducing overall collateral costs to the market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Regular financial updates showed decreased market TPE and discretionary collateral from $1.88B to $1.72B August to September.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=c00c641c-8e3f-4b6e-bc2e-73fa773da971">12.1</a> - Approval of CFSG Membership</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the CFSG membership addition as presented (Brian Kozlowski, Wolframium Power LP, IPM) added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A new member, Brian Kozlowski, is proposed for the credit finance subgroup.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Approval by TAC is required for the new member.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=f61ab81b-65d5-4ea0-be64-cc52a5047371">13</a> - RTC+B Task Force Report - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/RTCBTF_TAC_Update_10302024.pdf">RTCBTF_TAC_Update_10302024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Purpose and function of the task force explained, focusing on coordinating timelines, activities, and Market Readiness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Approval sought for coordinating market readiness and cutover activities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Announced a go-live date of December 5, 2025, for the project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Sequence progression outlined, noting nothing changed from last TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on coordinating and gaining consensus on market readiness and transition activities.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed the importance of Market trials plan for a successful transition in 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presented a review of current issues such as AS proxy offer floors and state of charge parameters.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighted the approach to market readiness, including just-in-time PowerPoint presentations and videos that will act as self serve training.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Requested endorsement of the Market trials plan after four reviews.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Identified ongoing discussions regarding ancillary service and energy ramp sharing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT Task Force reviewed NOGRR268, PGRR118, and OBDRR052, relating to battery energy storage details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed the completion of ripple effect terminology and issues needing approval before go-live.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Outlined a new approach to include technical workshops starting in 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed TAC approved parameters, expressing concerns and plans to include them in formal protocols rather than other binding documents.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to propose an ‘omnibus’ NPRR to solidify TAC approved parameters for market readiness.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=1a64d94b-b984-4dfc-8995-a1e22e06d0ac">13.1</a> - Endorse RTC+B Market Trials Plan</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse the RTC+B Market Trials Plan as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Development of the RTC+B market trials plan resulted in an eight-page document, reviewed four times by the RTC+B task force.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Details regarding the low frequency control test were discussed and deferred to the handbook for further clarification.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The plan's language was adjusted without affecting the objective, timing, and criteria; the handbook will detail the implementation process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Participants were satisfied with the plan, which avoided concerns and facilitated recommendations for TAC endorsement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussions emphasized the importance of QSEs proper telemetry and production tests to match current systems without needing dummy data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The finalized version of the plan was shared with TAC materials for endorsement, serving as a formal document within ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The board does not need to approve the document, which remains within TAC's purview, serving as a reference for resolving future challenges.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Training videos and further details will be posted on the RTCBTF meeting page</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The endorsement process aimed for a combo ballot with no objections, supporting a streamlined approval method.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Further deliberation on memorializing TAC-approved parameters and potential removal via NPRRs is anticipated.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=8979598f-39d6-4402-8f4a-cfe51617fd3b">14</a> - Update of Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Improved communication aspects are being worked on.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Commission staff, including Barksdale, plan to participate in meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Efforts to include subcommittee information at the board level were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Presentation on stakeholder process was given at R&M; looking for future topics.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on ERCOT responses or filings to have oppositions before board presentation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Analyzed other ISOs' TAC duties, responsibilities, and representation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Some improvements might require TAC procedure or board bylaw changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board might be working on ideas, possibly with the PUC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Hoping to have Chairman Flores in upcoming TAC meetings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Further discussion on ideas requiring document changes is needed.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0ea4bf82-e43a-43e6-a2f9-6dff0b4a6510">15</a> - ERCOT Reports</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=b750b90b-da92-4d32-9f87-496676b6a871">15.1</a> - AEPSC Brownsville Area Improvements Transmission Project - Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/Brownsville_Area_Improvement_Regional_Planning_Group_Project_EIR_TAC_October_2024.pdf">Brownsville_Area_Improvement_Regional_Planning_Group_Project_EIR_TAC_October_2024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse AEPSC Brownsville Area Improvements Transmission Project – Option 2A added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Introduction of the AEP Brownsville Area Improvement Project, a Tier 1 project estimated at $387.7 million.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The project addresses thermal and voltage issues in Brownsville, Cameron County, and requires a CCN.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussions on thermal issues including 100 miles of 138kV line overloads and existing transformer overloads under various conditions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Evaluation of eight alternatives to address thermal and voltage issues, with Option 2A being least cost and addressing operational concerns.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Option 2A involves building 26 miles of new right of way, estimated at $423.8 million.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">SSR screening concluded no adverse impacts due to existing or proposed generation resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Congestion analysis identified issues, but no additional upgrades met economic criteria.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendation to endorse Option 2A to address reliability needs, with implementation by May 2029 at $423.8 million.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Project plan includes building new circuits and stations, involving new and existing 138kV and 345kV lines.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal includes adding a 150MW statcom at the Xiaomei 138kV station.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion about endorsing Option 2A on the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=0b48f281-fb60-469b-b843-77ce4bcda51b">15.2</a> - Reduce per CRRAH Transaction Limit - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/TAC-CRR-CMWG_10302024.pdf">TAC-CRR-CMWG_10302024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve a CRR Account Holder transaction limit for all Long-Term Auction Sequences of 3,000 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Matt Mereness discussed reducing the per CRRAH transaction limit due to frequent oversubscriptions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Suggested lowering the current limit from 4,000 to 2,800, or 3,000, to mitigate oversubscription frequencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal aims to address system constraints and improve auction performance.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion on whether the change is temporary or permanent; Matt indicated it as temporary until other solutions are implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised about applying this solution to all auction sequences equally.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT reported performance improvements following software upgrades but mentioned limitations remain.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was a preference among some participants for more comprehensive communication regarding system limitations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Proposal to adopt the new limit immediately was met with support from participants seeking market stability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">A motion to adopt the reduced limit was proposed and supported, indicating a move towards a formal vote.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=24c823d7-2cf4-44e6-b113-d5fe58b18da1">15.3</a> - ERCOTs Framework for Evaluating Market Design - Keith Collins</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/KCollins%20Market%20Design%20Framework%20-%20TAC.pdf">KCollins Market Design Framework - TAC.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Framework for evaluating market design was initially presented at the BOD meeting in August. Aim is to present it in other forums including TAC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mission of ERCOT includes ensuring reliability and efficient electricity markets.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of using appropriate tools (design and market tools) for different tasks to achieve reliability and competitive market objectives.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Need to adjust strategies for changing energy landscape, including increased solar, storage, and wind resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Framework should assist decision-makers in understanding initiative goals and outcomes, avoiding inefficiencies.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of considering flexibility, dependability, availability, resiliency, and efficiency in market design.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from prior presentations included questions about resource adequacy, initiative measurement, and framework alignment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Encouragement for submitting feedback to TAC, with suggestions for improving the framework through community input.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Framework under construction; aims to balance reliability, consumer cost, and efficiency without over-engineering.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion highlighted importance of consumer cost, political feasibility, and avoiding over-engineering in market solutions.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=f2019c1c-1a48-4823-9a3e-83c664fbe1fc">15.4</a> - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Chris Cosway</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/10/LLI%20Queue%20Status%20Update%20-%202024-10-30.pdf">LLI Queue Status Update - 2024-10-30.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant increase in standalone large load project requests over the past 12 months.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Queue has grown by over 5 GW despite some project cancellations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Projected growth of nearly 13 GW between 2027-2028.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A significant number of project requests are under review to approve or modify.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">1,771 MW of large loads approved to energize over the past year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Total of 5,697 MW approved to energize.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">3,055 MW in load zone West; 2,642 MW in other zones.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">4,622 MW consist of standalone projects; 1,075 MW co-located.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Of the 5,697 MW, non-simultaneous peak consumption is 3,514 MW.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Observed simultaneous peak consumption of 2,815 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Simultaneous peak value discussion and considerations for presenting monthly values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns mentioned about confidentiality in data presentation.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Question from Evan Neal, Lancium, on simultaneous and non simultaneous peak values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Evan Neal suggests some loads might have reduced consumption.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Consideration for providing simultaneous peak monthly values in future reports.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=1b3788a2-0b65-42a8-9fcc-258045d20d46">16</a> - Other Business</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Mention of the commencement of membership segment elections.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=413408b0-0825-43ee-8242-7c570fe695f8">16.1</a> - 2025 ERCOT Membership / Segment Representative Elections - Suzy Clifton</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Date of record is this coming Friday, 11/02/24.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Membership applications and fees should be completed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Election process starts on Tuesday, November 5th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reminders and notices have been sent to segments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Election notice will be sent out on November 5th.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=e4eeb308-9108-40df-bf83-39095e5be60a">16.2</a> - TAC Procedure Improvements - Caitlin Smith</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Caitlin Smith and Cory Phillips discussed improving the TAC procedure by considering a consolidated redline version of documents for easier readability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The idea is to simplify documents by consolidating numerous redline changes into a single, coherent version, while preserving authorship recognition.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Past issues, such as with NOGRR245, involved complex and multicolored documents that were difficult to process, often requiring extensive time and effort.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cory and Caitlin are exploring options to modify current procedures and potentially amend Section 21, allowing TAC leadership discretion to consolidate document redlines for more efficient processing.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The proposal aims to make the comment review process streamlined and user-friendly, without losing authorship clarity.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Richard Ross  expressed a view that there is nothing prohibiting the use of a consolidated version. TAC's adoption makes it legitimate, and individual redlines can still be referred to if necessary.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There is room for revising Section 21 if needed, and these considerations will be addressed in upcoming NPRR discussions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">No final decisions were made, but Cory and Caitlin will continue to refine the proposal and present it in future NPRR sessions.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=27ec0fe1-0b85-450d-ab03-dcb8e4ecd307">17</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The motion to approve the combo ballot carried unanimously.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/10/10302024TACComboItems.png" width="872" height="351" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/10/10302024TACComboBallot.png" width="873" height="866" /> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=dffc5777-edce-448a-b223-c3caf81cbaff">18</a> - Adjourn</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An in-person meeting is planned for November.</li> </ul>