Frame

Meeting Summary - 11/20/2024 - TAC Meeting

Grid Monitor AI
11/21/2024

<h2><img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/11.20.2024.TAC.Hero.Image.png" width="884" height="496" /></h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=a0762431-4d02-45c7-a487-175069ebdf0e">1</a> - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0a4247a9-31a1-4a98-93d6-ac01d74597ee">2</a> - Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7f2074e5-2ac1-45dd-a689-c3fe0ff47386">2.1</a> - ERCOT Board/Stakeholder Engagement Update - Rebecca Zerwas/Ann Boren</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/Board%20Stakeholder%20Engagement%20Update%20(11.24%20TAC)%20(002).pdf">Board Stakeholder Engagement Update (11.24 TAC) (002).pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is continuing to enhance stakeholder communications with the PUC and the board by implementing several new practices.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Increasing information on revision requests with opposing votes and adding substantive information in TAC reports.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Introduction of TAC leadership briefings with R&M leadership is seen as a positive reform move.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT Board Chairman, Bill Flores, expressed appreciation for stakeholder engagement and highlighted efforts to improve protocol processes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans are underway to improve board familiarity with stakeholders and expand stakeholder engagement opportunities beyond 2024.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Rebecca Zerwas explained the aim for greater direct interaction between stakeholders and the board, especially independent directors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns were raised about avenues for stakeholders to address issues at the board level and requests for board member meetings to be facilitated.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The board aims to expand engagement sessions in 2025 and improve discussion towards strategic objectives and policy issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Board engagement sessions are planned to be more formalized with prior information sharing and potential virtual formats.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT is committed to ongoing processes to enhance board-stakeholder interactions for high-impact projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Feedback from stakeholders emphasized appreciation of the engagement process and requests for more interactions with board members.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=e51a87d6-fd9b-4317-8d29-12f1c1932631">3</a> - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=eeb90235-ad41-42ed-8cb5-37b8c4db5b8a">3.1</a> - October 30, 2024</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the October 30, 2024 TAC meeting minutes as presented added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=6275037c-b037-4f0d-8c3a-e45399573579">4</a> - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/ Opinions - Ann Boren/IMM</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/4-revision-request-summary-112024_rev3.pdf">4-revision-request-summary-112024_rev3.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">15 revision requests on the TAC agenda this month.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1239 has a $50k-$100k impact, NPRR1240 has a $40k-$60k impact, and NPRR1247 has a $360k-$440k O&M impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">4 revision requests in the regulatory category, and 11 for general system process improvements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT supports all revision requests and provided positive market impact statements.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Credit finance subgroup review found no credit impacts for any NPRRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM has mostly no opinion but supports NPRR1247 and NPRR1180, conditionally supporting associated PGRR107.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">IMM changed their stance from no opinion to support NPRR1190.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion focused on the importance of PGRR107 related to NPRR1180, emphasizing the need for incorporating forecasted load in planning analysis.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns raised about ERCOT's use of forecast data, stressing the need for discretion and accuracy.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=f5cc7a75-e49e-4bf5-b534-2d62e2902b9c">5</a> - PRS Report - Diana Coleman</h2> <h2><a style="font-size: 14px;" href="/storage/docs/2024/11/5.%20PRS%20Presentation%20to%20TAC%20112024.pdf">PRS Presentation to TAC 112024.pdf</a></h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion made by Bob Helton and seconded by David Key to waive notice on NPRR1239, NPRR1240, NPRR1246, NPRR1247, and NPRR1254 approved unanimously with no abstentions.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmation that the notice is officially waived, allowing subsequent motions to be made regarding these NPRRs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Agreement to handle unopposed revision requests before addressing more contentious issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Five proposed recommendations for tax consideration were discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two recommendations are unopposed and have no impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A proposal from ERCOT involves adding language related to energy storage resources.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=8474997c-7441-4610-b066-2d3dc67a53d2">5.1</a> - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information - Waive Notice</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1239 as recommended by PRS in the 11/14/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion of NPRR1239, which relates to access to market information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">This will not include any ECEII information.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1239 and NPRR1240 share a joint priority of 2025 and a rank of 4540.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasis was placed on the close relation between the two items.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=69ddcc5d-c805-470b-aacb-a3a089759dfe">5.2</a> - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information (Waive Notice)</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1240 as recommended by PRS in the 11/14/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1240 involves moving certain transmission planning reports to the public section of ERCOT's website.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Both NPRR1239 and NPRR1240 have a project priority of 2025, rank 45 for NPRR1240 and 40 for NPRR1239.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Unanimous approvals noted: September 12 and November 14 endorsement of reports.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns raised about potential impacts on pipeline projects during transition periods.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Clarification needed on upcoming network model dates to ensure no interference with current planning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">General agreement to include the approvals on the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=978eb9a6-53d9-47c1-9cc7-6725c1b71881">5.3</a> - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era Waive Notice</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1246 as recommended by PRS in the 11/14/24 PRS Report added to the combo ballot. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The proposal aims to align provisions and requirements for energy storage resources with those already in place for generation and controllable load resources.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=5e058e46-89b7-4261-91c1-329fc46d7c42">5.4</a> - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects – URGENT - Waive Notice</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to To recommend approval of NPRR1247 as recommended by PRS in the 11/14/24 PRS Report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion passes with 89% in favor, 3 No’s, and 1 abstention</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1247.Vote.png" /> <ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Incorporation of Consumer Energy Cost Reduction test for economic project evaluation was discussed, following recent Public Utility Commission amendments.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There were debates on including reference white papers in protocols and approval expediency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Comments from Luminant, ERCOT, and others were presented, highlighting concerns with discount factors and test designs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Various stakeholders expressed the need for detail in methodology and concerns about double counting benefits.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussions included the effectiveness of a proposed 0.25 multiplier on calculated congestion cost savings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Differences of opinion were noted regarding the benefits and costs to consumers, particularly concerning congestion revenue distribution.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT clarified process and data challenges, emphasizing system-wide gross load test as optimal currently.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Motion to to table NPRR1247 failed</li> </ul> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1247.Failed-Vote.png" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=687d9079-1ccc-4645-aca5-ee01607c38c0">5.5</a> - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data - Waive Notice</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1254 as recommended by PRS in the 11/14/24 PRS Report with a recommended effective date of March 1, 2025 added to the combo ballot.</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NPRR1254 is a proposal from ERCOT.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">It requires resource entities to submit initial resource registration data.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">For generator interconnection or modification projects to submit the initial resource registration data four months prior to target inclusion</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=dbc19987-facc-4b87-a7cc-ba0bb3b4cddc">6</a> - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=0c11d496-4d6d-4099-8149-04fbfffb7416">6.1</a> - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NPRR1180 as recommended by PRS in the 10/17/24 PRS Report and the 10/28/24 Revised Impact Analysis added to the mini combo ballot.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion passed with four abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1180-PGRR107.BallotDetails.png" width="819" height="35" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1180-PGRR107.Vote.png" /> <ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussion centered on NPRR1180, focusing on comments from various stakeholders, including OPUC, Oncor, and others.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">OPUC highlighted the importance of accurate load projections to avoid unnecessary costs from overbuilding transmission infrastructure.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There's consensus on the need for validation and substantiation of forecasted load growth, with quantifiable evidence required under commission rules.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Some members, like Mark and Bob, expressed support for moving forward with the NPRR, emphasizing the need for a follow-up revision to address validation process details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Concerns were raised regarding transparency and standardization in projecting loads, specifically related to TDSP attestations.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Oncor and other TDSPs committed to increasing transparency and standardizing the attestation process, planning to develop a strawman proposal for another NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">There was a collective acknowledgment of significant load growth and the challenges it poses, with emphasis on the need for forecast transparency to aid market participants in decision-making.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The motion to move NPRR1180 forward as recommended by PRS was accepted, accompanied by a related PGRR107 as recommended by ROS, with four abstentions recorded.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=2c29205c-fc44-40fd-ad57-0db5d6cd2c23">6.2</a> - NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">NPRR1190 was remanded from the board and tabled at the October TAC meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A discussion focused on the need for a mechanism to prevent high dispatch limit (HDL) overrides from becoming prevalent in the market.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A concept was proposed for an annual settlement trigger. If ERCOT exceeds a certain dollar amount in HDL override payments, a review of the language will be triggered.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The review would aim to tighten contracts eligible for HDL settlements, ensuring these payments remain rare and do not lead to increased costs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It was suggested to refer the discussion to WMS or a working group for further development of the proposal details.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">There was a general consensus that this issue needs more discussion and details should be worked out at a subgroup level.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Different stakeholders, including Blake Holt and John Russ Hubbard, expressed varying levels of concern and interest in the proposal.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Formal comments and further discussions at WMS were recommended before taking official action.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=3854df9b-1f78-4250-8f4f-7ee608e44938">6.3</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">Decision to keep NOGRR264 tabled, awaiting NPRR1235 </li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=140015af-8fe0-4645-a49b-a3409d770d25">6.4</a> - NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR266 as recommended by ROS in the 10/3/24 ROS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=a3f3408a-1cfb-4f39-9619-03ff5b61884c">6.5</a> - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR267 as recommended by ROS in the 10/3/24 ROS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d9900386-ed76-4ce7-ac3a-b7f29431c8be">6.6</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">Motion to recommend approval of OBDRR052 as amended by the 10/14/24 ERCOT comments; and the 7/31/24 Impact Analysis added to the combo ballot</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT has comments on OBDRR052 specifically to clarify the use of Energy Storage Resource.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">The comments are primarily clarifications, without substantial changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT had attempted to introduce ESR terminology extensively, but on further review with legal advisors, concluded that existing language was adequate.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Similar comments were addressed in NPRR1246, and PRS had included these in their report.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT proposed to back out some changes in NPRR and PGRR that ROS and PRS voted on to rely on existing language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Additional edits for OBDRR were proposed to adjust the extensive use of ESR terminology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT agreed to add four items to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=bf62746c-30b4-4c1e-9d70-a8ff1e76a3aa">6.7</a> - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of PGRR116 as recommended by ROS in the 10/30/24 ROS Report added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=017613ea-f921-42ac-8579-311abbdbdf92">7</a> - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">RMS did not meet in November.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Successful implementation of Texas 5.0 and Market Track SCR817 over the weekend of November 9th and 10th.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Seven market rules needed for implementation, including BRR, 2 system change requests, 4 retail mark guide revision requests, and tons of Texas SET change controls.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Numerous Texas set change controls were involved, previously presented for TAC approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">All existing TDSPs and REPs migrated successfully; 24 new REPs, primarily DUNS plus fours.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Initial transactional issues were encountered but mostly resolved; ongoing work with some parties to fix remaining issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgement of extensive effort and support from ERCOT, especially Dave Michelson and his team.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">It had been 12 years since the last Texas SET version release.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=1ff3cef3-651c-40a3-ad0f-59f9334e3db5">8</a> - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/ROS_Update_to_TAC%2011%2020%2024.pdf">ROS_Update_to_TAC 11 20 24.pdf</a> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=7372a09e-031f-490c-ac81-1ef7d0e4b898">8.1</a> - PGRR107, Related to NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of PGRR107 as recommended by ROS in the 11/7/24 ROS Report added to the mini combo ballot.</li> </ul> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1180-PGRR107.BallotDetails.png" width="819" height="35" /> <img src="/storage/docs/2024/11/2024-TAC-NPRR1180-PGRR107.Vote.png" /> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=092e7d3e-b72c-4b1a-afeb-88b0e58e8653">8.2</a> - PGRR118, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of PGRR118 as recommended by ROS in the 11/7/24 ROS Report added to the combo ballot. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Relation of PGRR118 to NPRR1246 was addressed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Terminology improvements aim to streamline communication and reduce confusion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasis placed on consistency in terminology as part of the transition to a Single-Model Era.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=2fa70169-1985-487a-8632-1b64a4e75dc7">8.3</a> - NOGRR268, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to recommend approval of NOGRR268 as recommended by ROS in the 11/7/24 ROS Report added to the combo ballot. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NOGRR268 discussed and actions taken.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Noted three votes against and many abstentions on 1247, despite a special PLWG meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">1257 tabled and referred to PDCWG, expected to return to ROS in December.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PLWG approved moving forward with PGRR117.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">PGRR120, related to SSO prevention, is new and referred to PLWG and DWG.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">NOGRR271 connected to 1257; procedural manual for DWG approved after adding missing language.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Next ROS meeting scheduled for December 5th, Webex only.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Recommendations for approval of PGRR118 and NOGRR268 by ROS mentioned.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Call for a break.</li> </ul> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=2bd58e0b-6a28-4c1f-9f4c-4028f2d96f65">9</a> - WMS Report - Eric Blakey</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/WMS%20Report%20To%20TAC%20-%20November%2020%202024%20rev1.pdf">WMS Report To TAC - November 20 2024 rev1.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Q3 unregistered distributed generation (DG) report indicated a total of 2724 megawatts installed, an 80 megawatt increase over Q2.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The 2024 settlement stability report showed no price changes in Q3.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Upcoming capacity demand report to be presented by Pete Warrenkin in a few weeks.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A significant topic was the CRR auction revenue distribution issue identified by ERCOT in July, requiring guidance from WMS.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The issue was referred to WMWG, which developed three options concerning CARDallocation methodology.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The subcommittee and working group collaborated with ERCOT and IMM to develop options before filing a protocol request change.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A vote on these options is scheduled for the next WMS meeting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Tabled revision request 1250 was endorsed for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The next WMS meeting is on December 4th.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=44f0b91b-b850-4d97-9b4a-0a75449cef36">10</a> - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/TAC_CFSG_19Nov2024.pdf">TAC_CFSG_19Nov2024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The meeting discussed operational NPRRs with no credit impact, EAL change proposals, system reporting and enhancements, credit updates, and regular credit exposures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT credit is implementing 1184 for managing interest collateral, changing from annual to monthly.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Formatting changes in ERCOT reports are expected; users should be aware if they copy/paste from these reports.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion of automated emails for counterparty credit contacts regarding changes in LCs or surety bonds.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasis on a new form for estimating aggregate liability, driven by forward adjustment factors applied to netted real-time and day-ahead factors.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A proposal was made for a simplified method to avoid over-collateralization by taking the highest combination of related values rather than separate max values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recognizing over-collateralization issues where market participants over collateralized by tens of millions of dollars above actual exposure.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Primary goal: avoid under collateralization while preventing unnecessary over collateralization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT evaluated multiple scenarios to prevent both over and under collateralization with priority given to preventing under collateralization.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A practical and expedited implementation strategy was discussed to reduce complexities and cater to ERCOT's limited resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Highlighting the need to expedite this strategy before another major pricing event like summer 2023.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Vote planned in support of the committee with ERCOT Credit presenting further in January.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Monthly highlights: total expense potential exposure remains at 1.73 billion, minor drop in discretionary collateral ($3.92 to $3.82 billion), no unusual calls, adequate historical collateral postings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">ERCOT resolved compliance issues by increasing LC limits.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=82238ccf-b104-4d12-8aaa-e4ea28882de3">10.1</a> - Approval of CFSG Membership</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/Don%20Meek%20-%20Habitat%20Energy%20-%20ERCOT%20CFSC%20Membership%20Application.pdf">Don Meek - Habitat Energy - ERCOT CFSC Membership Application.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the CFSG membership addition as presented (Don Meek, Habitat Energy, IPM) added to the combo ballot.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=b39b6467-01ad-4586-a1b4-b48962262cd0">11</a> - RTC+B Task Force Report - Matt Mereness</h2> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/RTCBTF_TAC_Update_11202024.pdf">RTCBTF_TAC_Update_11202024.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Schedule for readiness and policy pieces remains unchanged, with highlights on key issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Received RTC scared from the vendor and are working on integration.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Policy issues need addressing for market readiness, including getting NPRR in place and IMM proposal walkthrough on AS demand curves.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market trials are set to start on May 5th, with an early release to the market in March and April for testing purposes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Policy issues from 2019 need to be finalized and approved by TAC, wrapped into a single NPRR.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">AS demand curves are being evaluated through simulations to determine appropriateness.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Training updates provided, including initial training videos and training modules for operator training seminar in March.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion on AS proxy offers and decision-making on bid values.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Simulator updates with different operational days to evaluate impacts on price and congestion.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ongoing analysis and adjustments to AS demand curves to improve price formation and award efficiency.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion about constraints related to AS demand curves and potential for redesigning without technical issues.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan for filing NPRRs by December, aiming for a complete analysis by March with approvals in March/April.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Concerns on ASDC policy changes and their window for implementation before Go Live date.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plan to evaluate simulator outputs and market trial handbooks by December.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=fd90ff87-6334-472a-b8c1-3b34d42e2b28">12</a> - ERCOT Reports</h2> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=d063c530-9d68-4b62-b2fe-bfd63e7391a1">12.1</a> - Segment Membership Discussion - Katherine Gross</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/ERCOT%202025%20Membership%20%20Nov%2020%20TAC3_11.19.24.pdf">ERCOT 2025 Membership Nov 20 TAC3_11.19.24.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Katherine Gross from ERCOT's Legal department reviewed segment membership changes since 2014.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A possibility for changing segment structure was discussed, with workshops potentially starting after the holidays.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Industrial consumer segment changes and cryptocurrency/data center segment placement discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Recent legislative changes removed requirements from the Public Utility Regulatory Act, making segment definitions solely a bylaw matter.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Total membership has increased steadily from 2014 to 2024, with 2025 seeing a slight decrease to 326 members.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Changes in membership segments noted: increase in independent generators and industrial consumer segment, and decrease in REP segment.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussion around segment definition challenges, particularly with data centers and cryptocurrency miners.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to resolve current segment issues focusing on data and cryptocurrency centers before the next membership year.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Importance of maintaining balance among segments mentioned, with attention to not allowing any segment to dominate.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Potential for ERCOT to look at practices from other ISOs and membership fee structures.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Confirmation that bylaw changes would need board approval, and potentially PUC involvement.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Intention to work collaboratively with stakeholders on segment structure, possibly requiring corporate member proposal for bylaw changes.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Workshop planned for January to further discuss and update findings.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A need to redefine 'industrial consumer' to accommodate cryptocurrency and data centers discussed.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Acknowledgment that the issue partly arises from how industrial classification affects outage scheduling exemptions.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=360b950b-311e-4b3a-b9b8-f22c2c11df3f">12.2</a> - Price Correction - Nov. 1, 2024 - Incomplete Weekly Database Load - Gordon Drake</h3> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The price correction is intended to be presented to the December R&M committee and board meeting for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An issue was identified where a routine weekly database load failed, affecting real-time intervals from 12:00am to 12:30pm on November 1st.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Market notices were issued on November 8th and November 12th to inform about the investigation and intent for approval.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The price correction evaluation criteria involve a 2% relative impact and a $20,000 absolute impact, or a 20% or greater impact and $2,000 impact to a single counterparty.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Two counterparties were impacted under the second criteria, with one having a maximum exposure of $2,758, equating to a 45% impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The overall impact on ERCOT market settlement was $1,977, considered a very small market impact.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The price correction will be brought to the Reliability Markets Committee on December 2 for a recommendation to the board for approval on December 3.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=374498a5-c71f-4b70-9ab6-de7e4aea2e21">12.3</a> - Oncor Delaware Basin Stages 3 and 4 RPG Project – EIR Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/Delaware%20Basin%20Stages%203%20and%204_Regional_Planning_Group_Project_EIR_TAC_November_2024.pdf">Delaware Basin Stages 3 and 4 Regional Planning Group Project EIR TAC November 2024</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to endorse the Oncor Delaware Basin Stages 3 and 4 Project to address reliability needs in the Culberson, Loving, Reeves, and Ward Counties in the Far West Weather Zone added to the combo ballot. </li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Presentation by Prabhu Gnanam on the Oncor Delaware Basin Stage 3 and 4 RPG projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Project submitted by Oncor estimated at $202.2 million requiring CCN.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Addresses reliability issues in Culberson, Loving, Reeves, and Ward counties in Far West Texas.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Originated from the 2019 ERCOT Delaware Basin Study to handle load growth.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Incorporates local projects IDC L1, L3, and L5 for the 2024 Permian Basin reliability needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Project exceeds $100 million threshold, requiring ERCOT to present findings to TAC for board presentation.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Planning criteria highlighted voltage violations and power flow issues necessitating the project.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">SSR screening showed no adverse impact on existing or planned resources.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Congestion and sensitivity analyses revealed no new congestion or impact from future projects.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">ERCOT recommends board approval for the project to meet reliability needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Projected completion date is June 2027.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Key components include a new 345kV line from Riverton to Drill Hole and upgrades to existing lines.</li> </ul> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=53bb89d3-3529-4ba9-b37c-e0693131cc56">12.4</a> - MDRPOC Update and Outage Performance Review - Fred Huang</h3> <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/MDRPOC%20Performance%20TAC_11202024_rev1.pdf">MDRPOC Performance TAC_11202024_rev1.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An overview of 2023 outage performance was given, including aggregate resource outages and comparisons between calculated MDRPOC and approved plan outages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The significant impact of the 2023 ice storm on outages was noted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Comments from previous meetings were addressed, with a focus on tying the associated risk of MDRPOC to system reliability.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Reviewed the MDRPOC calculation versus planned thermal outages for each day in 2023.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Addressed the issue of plan outages exceeding MDRPOC and ensured continued support for approved outages.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Discussed long-term load forecast impacts on MDRPOC, noting significant growth that could reduce MDRPOC.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emphasized the need to maintain sufficient capacity for real-time operations and future outage needs.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Proposed a probabilistic approach for future MDRPOC calculations to better quantify risk levels.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">An ongoing project will quantify risk and refine the MDRPOC process with stakeholder input.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Significant load forecasts might necessitate revising MDRPOC methodologies by Q2 2025.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Several participants provided feedback and suggestions to improve transparency and efficiency in the MDRPOC process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Plans to continue using the current MDRPOC methodology until new methods are approved and implemented.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stakeholders expressed concerns over issues like the withdrawal of outages based on current approvals and advocated for improvements in the AAN process.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The probabilistic approach's potential for smoothing out MDRPOC volatility over time was discussed.</li> </ul> <h3><a href="/sharing/?token=38e1fc18-f9e5-4b15-b89a-4992313922cc">12.5</a>* - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Julie Smittman</h3> *not an official agenda item*  <a href="/storage/docs/2024/11/LLI%20Queue%20Status%20Update%20-%202024-11-20.pdf">LLI Queue Status Update - 2024-11-20.pdf</a> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Peak load of 63,000 MW in the November 2024 queue.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Net increase of 1,050 MW in queue capacity after including new, canceled, and co-located projects.</li> </ul> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Queue capacity projection for in-service dates up to 2028.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Projects categorized by study status:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Orange: No studies submitted.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Gray: Planning studies approved.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Purple: Under ERCOT review.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Teal: Approved to energize.</li> </ul> </ul> Approved Load to Energize: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">6,297 MW total approved to energize.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">3,055 MW in Load Zone West, the rest in other zones.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">5,000 MW from standalone projects, 1,000 MW from co-located projects.</li> </ul> Consumption Peaks: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Non-simultaneous peak consumption: 3,700 MW.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Coincident peak consumption: 2,834 MW.</li> </ul> Key Questions & Discussions: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Clarification on Energized Projects:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Energized means approval from ERCOT and TSP, but construction may take years.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Data Center Load Cap:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Discussed 1,000 MW contingency cap (PGRR115) related to stability and frequency issues.</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Segmentation of Load Zones:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Request to avoid grouping multiple zones under "other."</li> </ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ramp-Up and Forecasting:</li> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Emphasis on the need for detailed ramp-up data for load forecasting and resource adequacy planning.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="2">Suggestion to track and share how loads ramp up over time for better forecasting and planning for outages.</li> </ul> </ul> Feedback: <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Request for more data on load ramp-up and its impact on resource adequacy.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Participants suggested that more granular data (e.g., monthly ramp data) would improve forecasting.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Interest in expanding and standardizing the report for future TAC updates.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=ead82de1-bf9d-44be-b748-5d30fbfeb1bd">13</a> - Other Business</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Corey was requested to change the NPRR1240 motion due to a typo.</li> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">A typo regarding Bob Helton's discussion on item 1254 and discussed adjusting the enactment date to March 1st instead of February 1st for extra time.</li> </ul> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=b6975f28-273e-43ea-bdd6-f06a1687ca77">14</a> - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith</h2> <ul> <li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Motion to approve the combo ballot as presented passed unanimously with no abstentions.</li> </ul> <img src="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/11/20241120%20TAC%20Combo%20Ballot%20Items.png" width="865" height="129" /> <img src="https://dash3.gridmonitor.com/storage/docs/2024/11/20241120%20TAC%20Combo%20Ballot.png" width="863" height="854" /> <h2><a href="/sharing/?token=0ac5216e-870f-4018-ba78-b80532b5d4e3">15</a> - Adjourn</h2>