10/30/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 2:31:52
Duration 4:51:35
Loaded: 52.11%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 2:19:43
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:57Good morning, everyone. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT. Before we
  • 00:01:01get started with the TAC meeting, just a couple of meeting reminders.
  • 00:01:04Brittany's already put everything in the chat for you, but just
  • 00:01:08want to remind you that we are using the chat to queue for questions
  • 00:01:12or comments. And please wait for the chair to
  • 00:01:15recognize you before you begin speaking. Also,
  • 00:01:18as we get to the balloting process, if you are a voting member
  • 00:01:22and as we approach your segment, please remember to engage,
  • 00:01:26I mean, to pull yourself off of mute, cast your
  • 00:01:30vote and then engage the mute function again.
  • 00:01:33That will help us be a little more efficient with that balloting process.
  • 00:01:36And if the WebEx ends for any reason, give us just a few minutes,
  • 00:01:39we should log back in with the same meeting information and
  • 00:01:43that shouldn't be an issue. But if there is an issue with that link that
  • 00:01:47we have and the meeting information, we will recreate another
  • 00:01:51WebEx meeting and forward that information out to the TAC serve
  • 00:01:55if necessary. With that, Caitlin, we are ready to get started and we
  • 00:01:58do have a quorum this morning.
  • 00:02:05Thanks, Susie. Can you confirm you can hear me? Yes,
  • 00:02:09I can hear you. Okay, so before we
  • Clip 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith
    00:02:13get started, the antitrust is on the screen. To avoid
  • 00:02:17raising concerns about antitrust liability, participants in
  • 00:02:20ERCOT activities should refrain from proposing any action
  • 00:02:24or measure that would exceed ERCOT authority under federal or state
  • 00:02:27law. And there is more information on the ERCOT
  • 00:02:32website. All right,
  • 00:02:35it is October 30th. This is our October TAC meeting.
  • 00:02:39We are meeting via WebEx only.
  • 00:02:43The next meeting is November 20th. It will
  • 00:02:47be in person. It is actually the final TAC of the year.
  • 00:02:50We don't have a December TAC. And then we do have
  • 00:02:54an 11am start time for that meeting.
  • 00:02:57We will probably order lunch for that meeting. I'll put the
  • 00:03:01email address to contact if you need to be on the lunch list
  • 00:03:05in the chat. And then you know the cookie
  • 00:03:09guy, Keith. Somebody needs to bring cookies to
  • 00:03:13keep the SBP vibes going since we're meeting in
  • 00:03:16person and it'll be the festive last meeting of the
  • 00:03:20year. So today for
  • 00:03:23proxies and alternative representatives
  • 00:03:27in the IOU segment, Keith Nix
  • 00:03:31with TNMP has alt rep Rob Bevel.
  • 00:03:34And the municipal segment, Russell Franklin Garland, Power and Light
  • 00:03:38has alt rep Curtis Campo.
  • 00:03:41And we might have to do a proxy for Eric Goff,
  • 00:03:44but we will handle that when we get there.
  • 00:03:48First order of business, Richard Ross. Do we have a
  • 00:03:51theme of October?
  • 00:04:00All right, let's get back to Richard.
  • Clip 2 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith
    00:04:04 So we'll go to the real first Order of Business approval of
  • 00:04:08the September TAC meeting Minute Susie,
  • 00:04:13are you aware of any comments or edits? I don't believe I got any.
  • 00:04:17No, we did not have any edits. There was a administrative
  • 00:04:20edit made early on in that version 2 was
  • 00:04:24posted, so that's ready to go.
  • 00:04:27All right, so we are.
  • 00:04:30What we were looking to approve is version two.
  • 00:04:33And so I would propose putting that on the combo ballot unless there are
  • 00:04:37any objections.
  • 00:04:42All right. Okay. Eric Goff,
  • 00:04:46does that mean the theme is no theme? It's not that we have
  • 00:04:50no theme. We do have a theme and the theme is no theme.
  • Clip 3 - Meeting Updates - Caitlin Smith
    00:04:54Okay. We'll let Richard correct us if we're wrong on that meeting.
  • Clip 3.1 - September/October Board/PUCT Meetings
    00:04:59Updates We've had, I think, quite a few meetings since our September
  • 00:05:03TAC meeting. We had the October
  • 00:05:06ERCOT board meetings on the October 9th and
  • 00:05:1010th. All revision requests were approved there except for
  • 00:05:14NPRR1190, and that was when we actually brought to them at the
  • 00:05:18August board. It was remanded at the October board and it's
  • 00:05:21on our agenda shortly, so we can hold discussion on that until we
  • 00:05:25get to it on our agenda. We also had PUC
  • 00:05:29open meetings, I believe September 26, October 3,
  • 00:05:32October 24. At the September 26
  • 00:05:36meeting, all the revision requests in front of the commission were approved.
  • 00:05:41We did want to pull out two discussion items
  • 00:05:45on this update agenda item.
  • Clip 3.1.1 - Subcommittee Reporting to the Board
    00:05:48 So the first one is the subcommittee reporting to the
  • 00:05:51board. So at the October board meeting,
  • 00:05:55we had kind of a longer TAC report with more information.
  • 00:05:59I would say it was very well received. You know, one of
  • 00:06:03our efforts that we'll discuss later as well is to get more
  • 00:06:06communication and more transparency to the board and to the commission.
  • 00:06:11What we did at the October board meeting with include and our
  • 00:06:14TAC highlights, instead of just highlights from literally
  • 00:06:18TAC, we included highlights from all the subcommittees and task
  • 00:06:22forces that report directly to us. We had kind
  • 00:06:25of sort of a long bulleted list in some cases,
  • 00:06:29including approved NPRRs. My proposed
  • 00:06:33direction would be to have each of those subcommittees
  • 00:06:37and task forces really highlight kind of the
  • 00:06:40stickier items, the items of contention,
  • 00:06:44before they get to, you know, voting at the board so the board can see
  • 00:06:48what discussions are happening, you know, what is on the horizon.
  • 00:06:52And I received the question on that. You know, so you only want to hear
  • 00:06:55bad news. And I think that's not true. I think we
  • 00:06:59want to highlight, you know, where we got to consensus, where we did a lot
  • 00:07:01of work. You know, our RMS is really good at,
  • 00:07:07you know, looking at a situation and updating or improving.
  • 00:07:11And so I think that kind of thing we do want to hear about,
  • 00:07:14but I will open it up there if there is
  • 00:07:17any input on that reporting to the board.
  • 00:07:26All right, I don't see anyone in the queue.
  • 00:07:30Okay, so I have flagged this for subcommittee and task
  • 00:07:34force leadership. So I think I'll continue to work. Colin and I will continue
  • 00:07:37to work with them offline. But if anybody has feedback
  • 00:07:41on those reports we're doing to R&M and to the board,
  • Clip 3.1.2 - NOGRR245 Update
    00:07:44please let me know. So the other thing we
  • 00:07:48wanted to discuss was NOGRR245.
  • 00:07:53The Commission did approve this,
  • 00:07:56as you remember. We sort of bifurcated or decoupled this
  • 00:08:00NOGRR and there should or will be a phase two.
  • 00:08:04Ann, are you giving us the update on that?
  • 00:08:08Yeah, I can give you a brief update. So, as Caitlin
  • 00:08:12said, When NOGRR245 was approved, the board did direct
  • 00:08:16a priority NOGRRs the remaining details
  • 00:08:19of the exemption process. Since then, there's been conversations
  • 00:08:23and it's been decided that that piece is going to go through a PUC rulemaking
  • 00:08:28instead. And then after that is complete,
  • 00:08:31we will most likely have to file a NOGRR to line ERCOT guides or protocols
  • 00:08:36with the rulemaking.
  • 00:08:45Okay, thanks, Ann. I see Barksdale
  • 00:08:48in the queue. Thanks, Caitlin,
  • 00:08:52and good morning, everybody. And just a brief update
  • 00:08:56on where we are with that rulemaking. We have a
  • 00:09:00good team here selected at the PUC, and we've been working with
  • 00:09:03ERCOT staff to try to define exactly
  • 00:09:07how we're going to handle this portion of the NOGRR that
  • 00:09:12was bifurcated out. And the direction that we're headed right
  • 00:09:15now is that the rule will define
  • 00:09:23scenarios under which an entity
  • 00:09:27can request an exemption from a reliability
  • 00:09:32rule. It's not going to, at least as we're currently
  • 00:09:35thinking about it, it would not be specific to
  • 00:09:38the issues that were raised in NOGRR245,
  • 00:09:42but be more broadly applicable,
  • 00:09:46and then would define certain criteria
  • 00:09:50under which ERCOT could either grant or deny
  • 00:09:55that request for an exemption.
  • 00:09:58The rule then would lay out a process for ERCOT
  • 00:10:02to propose mitigation strategies
  • 00:10:06if it does think that an exemption can
  • 00:10:10be accommodated because ERCOT
  • 00:10:14will need the authority to maintain reliable operations
  • 00:10:18of the grid. And then finally, the rule would
  • 00:10:22lay out a process for an entity to seek an appeal from the commission
  • 00:10:26of ERCOT's decision.
  • 00:10:29And that would run through a contested case process in which the entity would
  • 00:10:33have to provide evidence of why
  • 00:10:38the decision should be amended or overturned.
  • 00:10:42So we're still in the beginning stages, since it's a rulemaking,
  • 00:10:46it'll go through kind of our normal rulemaking process.
  • 00:10:50And we are anticipating robust written comments.
  • 00:10:54And our aim is to try to get this
  • 00:10:59adopted by the commissioners in the early spring so
  • 00:11:03that we've got this in place in time for filing
  • 00:11:07requirements that are coming up later in the spring and into the summer.
  • 00:11:11I'm happy to take questions here or if you want to ping
  • 00:11:15me later, just feel free to reach out.
  • 00:11:25Thank you. Barksdale, any questions or comments at
  • 00:11:28this time?
  • 00:11:33Okay,
  • 00:11:36I don't see any in the queue. All right,
  • 00:11:40thank you again, Barksdale.
  • Clip 4 - Board Remand of NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs - Vote
    00:11:44 So we are on to agenda item.
  • 00:11:49And so the board remanded NPRR1190.
  • 00:11:53We voted this through TAC in June.
  • 00:11:56It was in front of the board in August, where they tabled it at the
  • 00:12:00October board. They did remand it back to TAC because
  • 00:12:04it was remanded. It's sort of like it's first time at
  • 00:12:08TAC again. So we will take, we will need to take some kind of action.
  • 00:12:12My proposal would be to use today as sort of an
  • 00:12:16educational information session and then if we're
  • 00:12:19not ready to vote, table it and plan to have that
  • 00:12:23substantive vote in November. Anything voted
  • 00:12:26through today or November would go to the December board,
  • 00:12:29so would still be on the same December board timeline.
  • 00:12:34And I wanted to make sure we took some time to get education
  • 00:12:38here. We have, we will have a presentation from
  • 00:12:41ERCOT, highlighting, especially where this started with
  • 00:12:45NPRR649, what was in that versus
  • 00:12:49in 1190 that was a topic of board discussion.
  • 00:12:53And then Eric Blakey will walk us through the
  • 00:12:57discussions and analysis that already took place at WMS and wmwg.
  • 00:13:02I think this is my fault that the agenda didn't get
  • 00:13:05updated. I don't believe we have any stakeholder presentations, but we will
  • 00:13:09have a number of verbal comments from the
  • 00:13:13different interested stakeholders. So with that,
  • 00:13:16let's start with the ERCOT presentation.
  • Clip 4.1 - ERCOT Presentation - Austin Rosel
    00:13:23 Hello, this is Austin. Hopefully you can hear me.
  • 00:13:27Yes, we can. Thanks, Austin.
  • 00:13:29Okay, like Caitlin said,
  • 00:13:33she asked us to put together some of the, some of the background on
  • 00:13:37the current protocol language on NPRR1190.
  • 00:13:41So that's, that's what this presentation covers. And I think Doug might
  • 00:13:45be online. So Doug, feel free to help me out if you think I didn't
  • 00:13:49mention something I should mention or help with questions.
  • 00:13:53So 1190 is a modification to
  • 00:13:56current protocol language, a current
  • 00:14:00policy that exists that was put there with NPRR649. NPRR649
  • 00:14:04came effective in 2016 and that
  • 00:14:09provides a payment for QSEs that
  • 00:14:13may have suffered losses due to a high dispatch limit override.
  • 00:14:19What created this policy was there was a case
  • 00:14:23at the PUC filed by Odessa where they suffered
  • 00:14:28some losses due to some HDL overrides that
  • 00:14:32went up to the puc. And there's the docket number here if you want to
  • 00:14:36review the more detailed
  • 00:14:39history there. But while that was being worked
  • 00:14:44out at the puc, ERCOT and Odessa reached a settlement agreement
  • 00:14:48where we would dismiss the case at the puc,
  • 00:14:52grant the disputes that were initially denied
  • 00:14:55by ERCOT from Odessa, and we would file an NPRR
  • 00:14:59that would create this new
  • 00:15:03HDL override payment mechanism in
  • 00:15:07the protocols.
  • 00:15:11Next slide please.
  • 00:15:15So the PUC considered that motion,
  • 00:15:19supported the agreement, told us to write an NPRR.
  • 00:15:23So in 2014 we filed
  • 00:15:27NPRR649. NPRR649
  • 00:15:32was contentious. It took about two years to get
  • 00:15:35to the stakeholder process.
  • 00:15:38TAC rejected it, it was appealed to the board remand,
  • 00:15:42it was remanded back to TAC. And eventually in April
  • 00:15:46of 2016 we finally
  • 00:15:49hammered out the final language. Now, I noticed on the first
  • 00:15:53slide this morning I called this the lost opportunity payment.
  • 00:15:57That's how the NPRR started. But by the time it got through the stakeholder
  • 00:16:01process and after the two years, this was no longer a lost opportunity payment.
  • 00:16:06It was meant to only cover financial loss.
  • 00:16:12Let's see, I saw some stuff in the chat. I'm trying to
  • 00:16:16bring up the chat window here after the presentations.
  • 00:16:19Okay, next slide please.
  • 00:16:25So here's a review of the, of the current
  • 00:16:29policy. So if a resource receives an HDL over
  • 00:16:33HDL override, high dispatch limit override where
  • 00:16:37they are directed to reduce their generation in
  • 00:16:41an out of market action or I guess be held down so
  • 00:16:44they cannot follow the prices
  • 00:16:48may have dispatched them higher on their energy offer curve than they're allowed
  • 00:16:51to go because of this HDL override. And that
  • 00:16:56covers a demonstrable financial loss. So that was like the change. It's not a loss
  • 00:16:59opportunity payment anymore if there is some
  • 00:17:03sort of forward obligation that they were
  • 00:17:06not able to fulfill because of the ACL override,
  • 00:17:10the QSE is eligible for to be considered for compensation
  • 00:17:15and likely granted if they, if they suffered a demonstrable
  • 00:17:19financial loss is the term in the protocols.
  • 00:17:23So that's the current policy. We have exercised that maybe
  • 00:17:2820 times for 20 resources or so,
  • 00:17:32mostly during Erie. It's not a, it's not a frequently used
  • 00:17:36mechanism. And relative to
  • 00:17:40overall settlements, I would Say that the amounts
  • 00:17:44that are, that have been paid through this historically have been, haven't been significant.
  • 00:17:48And if you look in the comments filed
  • 00:17:52by ERCOT in NPRR1190 you can see some data showing the
  • 00:17:57frequency of granted HDLs, the frequency
  • 00:18:01of HDLS that did not result in disputes and some of the settlement
  • 00:18:05amounts related to them.
  • 00:18:08Next slide.
  • 00:18:12Okay, so what does NPRR1190 do?
  • 00:18:15So NPRR1190 extends the current language.
  • 00:18:21So the current language says you have to have an HDL and you have to
  • 00:18:24have some sort of forward obligation, day ahead
  • 00:18:28sale or a bilateral agreement
  • 00:18:33of some kind. Some entities may not have those
  • 00:18:37based on how they're, how they operate like a Muni
  • 00:18:41or a competitive entity that has both generation load within the same QSE.
  • 00:18:44They may not have bilateral contracts with themselves or may not need to
  • 00:18:48have DAM activity to serve their own
  • 00:18:52load. So NPRR1190 was originally filed by Austin
  • 00:18:55Energy that expanded it to munis saying well munis don't need to
  • 00:18:59necessarily prove they have a DAM obligation or bilateral contract.
  • 00:19:02And then Reliance
  • 00:19:06or NRG filed comments
  • 00:19:10saying well they should also extend to entities that have
  • 00:19:14both gender mode under the same QSE. And that's what
  • 00:19:18ultimately was approved by TAC and went to the
  • 00:19:21board was extending it to these two types of entities.
  • 00:19:27Next slide please.
  • 00:19:30So I think Eric has a more detailed blow by blow of NPRR1190
  • 00:19:35and all the stakeholder activity.
  • 00:19:39But here's what happened at TAC and the board.
  • 00:19:42So in June TAC recommended
  • 00:19:46approval of NPRR1190 but the entire consumer
  • 00:19:49segment voted against it.
  • 00:19:53So then when I went to the board in August, the board those
  • 00:19:57no votes from the consumer segment gave them some pause.
  • 00:20:01So they wanted to consider it for a month, for a cycle,
  • 00:20:04a couple months for a board cycle. So they tabled it at
  • 00:20:08that level. And when it came back up in October,
  • 00:20:13the PUC made some comments at RM
  • 00:20:17saying they had some concerns about expanding the NPRR1190
  • 00:20:20treatment. And as a result of that the
  • 00:20:24it was remanded back here. And here we are today.
  • 00:20:29So that's high level background on the
  • 00:20:33policy here. Is there any questions?
  • 00:20:41Blake? Hey Blake Colt,
  • 00:20:45lcra. Can you hear me Austin? Yes sir.
  • 00:20:48Yeah, this is in regards to the last bullet here.
  • 00:20:53What was the scope of the remand recommended by
  • 00:20:57the board? Was it the PUC staff concerns
  • 00:21:01or the joint consumer concerns? My understanding is both
  • 00:21:05points of view are pretty different.
  • 00:21:09So I'm unsure of what the scope is for us
  • 00:21:12to consider today.
  • 00:21:16Go ahead. Let's say good question. I don't want to put
  • 00:21:19words in anybody's mouths I didn't read the official.
  • 00:21:23If there's some official language written on why it came back. I mean,
  • 00:21:27I don't know if anybody, anybody on the line
  • 00:21:30knows better than I do. I kind of left with the impression
  • 00:21:34it was. Yep, yeah, go ahead. I'll try to take this and Ann
  • 00:21:37can jump in. Like, I don't think we don't
  • 00:21:41really get specific instruction on what to
  • 00:21:44consider in. You know, there's a lot of discussion that they have that
  • 00:21:48we can glean information from that you're picking up on.
  • 00:21:51But as far as the remand, I believe it's
  • 00:21:54just vote to remand and not
  • 00:21:58a vote to direct us to look at exact things typically.
  • 00:22:03Ann, is that correct in this case? Yeah, that is
  • 00:22:06what my understanding is as well.
  • 00:22:09Okay. You know, they did have a lot of discussion and I
  • 00:22:12think those are all things we should consider. But in
  • 00:22:16the formal motion it's not look at things
  • 00:22:20under only X scope or only Y scope. It's just
  • 00:22:24a, a vote to remand and discuss
  • 00:22:27and bring it back to them.
  • 00:22:31Understood. Thanks. Okay.
  • 00:22:36Bill Barnes, do you want to go ahead or do you want to hold
  • 00:22:39your question?
  • 00:22:45I mean, I can. Going ahead is great. I just wanted to.
  • 00:22:48Eric indicated he wanted to wait, so I just wanted to.
  • 00:22:52Oh, okay. Well, I, I like Eric's background
  • 00:22:56on the procedural history, but I.
  • 00:23:00Let me just provide our perspective because we did eventually get involved in this.
  • 00:23:03We weren't an original sponsor, but really.
  • 00:23:08And I've been involved in both the initial discussions
  • 00:23:12with, for 649 and kind of where this ended up.
  • 00:23:17And really from our view, the initial intent
  • 00:23:22with 649 was to ensure
  • 00:23:26that a generator that has a PPA to sell output that is impacted
  • 00:23:30by an HDL override, meaning the HDL override prevents the
  • 00:23:33generator from fulfilling their contract on the PPA would be able to
  • 00:23:37recover reasonable costs and financial harm.
  • 00:23:41And that's the whole demonstrable component is you
  • 00:23:44would actually show ERCOT a PPA or a contract where you're
  • 00:23:48selling output to a counterparty and that HCL
  • 00:23:51override prevented you from fulfilling that contract.
  • 00:23:55Now, as with much protocol
  • 00:23:58language, it probably wasn't as clear and crisp as
  • 00:24:02it should have been. And so ERCOT
  • 00:24:06interpreted that language to also provide coverage
  • 00:24:10for a non opt in that has load,
  • 00:24:13which we don't pick exception to. We think that given
  • 00:24:17how the language was drafted, that was a
  • 00:24:21reasonable interpretation, but obviously not consistent
  • 00:24:25with at least our perspective what the intent was.
  • 00:24:28And so that is where I think the discussion changed as to, okay,
  • 00:24:32well if this is going to be used to allow
  • 00:24:35for entities to recover costs for hedging load, then we,
  • 00:24:39it needs to be implemented fairly, meaning that
  • 00:24:42all impacted participants would have the
  • 00:24:46ability to receive the same settlement treatment.
  • 00:24:51And that's where it gets a little trickier because a competitive entity
  • 00:24:55doesn't necessarily have the same type of
  • 00:24:58contract language or article
  • 00:25:03of certification or whatever it is that munis or co-ops have that
  • 00:25:06show that they have franchise load and any impact will obviously
  • 00:25:10cause them financial harm. And selling that and providing that load
  • 00:25:14competitive does not have that. We don't have a contract
  • 00:25:18with our generation fleet to cover every easy ID
  • 00:25:21that we're serving, that which changes on a daily basis. So that's where the language,
  • 00:25:26that's where we got involved to say, okay, well if we're going to do this,
  • 00:25:29let's make it fair. But we did.
  • 00:25:32We, you know, as Eric's presentation lays out, we spent probably over a year batting
  • 00:25:37this around. And to me, I think there's really three main
  • 00:25:43policy discussions or decisions
  • 00:25:46to make on this which we've, we've kind of worked our way through eventually.
  • 00:25:50The first is what Eric and Consumers brings up is should
  • 00:25:54we even allow the ability to get compensation for an
  • 00:25:57HDL override that impacts generator?
  • 00:26:00That's number one.
  • 00:26:04Number two is should this be applied
  • 00:26:07narrowly to a generator that has a ppa, which was,
  • 00:26:11from our view, the initial intent of what this was supposed to do.
  • 00:26:15And then three is if it can
  • 00:26:18be allowed to be used to get cost recovery for
  • 00:26:22hedging load, then it needs to be done fairly. So those are the
  • 00:26:25three really, I think, discussion points around the policy here. So I just
  • 00:26:28wanted to lay that out. Thanks.
  • 00:26:35Thanks, Bill. Alicia,
  • 00:26:41thank you. Bill said a
  • 00:26:44little bit of what I was going to say, but I've got a question for
  • 00:26:47ERCOT. Clearly we have been involved in one
  • 00:26:50of these, but my main question is if
  • 00:26:54the protocol does not specifically allow
  • 00:26:58for this, what is the other remedy that a
  • 00:27:02generator may have when this situation occurs?
  • 00:27:10I mean, I know the answer, but I'd like her.
  • 00:27:13Well, so you're saying like if we remove the language
  • 00:27:17that was introduced with 649.
  • 00:27:21No, the language that this NPRR is solving for,
  • 00:27:26what is this clarifying? What is the situation that
  • 00:27:30this helps?
  • 00:27:34And I think the answer to my question, I may be doing a really bad
  • 00:27:37job of framing it, is that we have to go through an ADR process.
  • 00:27:41Correct. No dispute
  • 00:27:44process. But I think Doug. I'll let Doug
  • 00:27:47Yeah, this is Doug. Can you all hear me?
  • 00:27:52Y'all hear me? Yes. Okay, great.
  • 00:27:56Yeah, I just wanted to. I'll add a little detail
  • 00:28:00on how this came about. So we had.
  • 00:28:04Austin Energy actually had filed and sought
  • 00:28:08compensation for this. This is public because we
  • 00:28:12granted their adr, but what happened
  • 00:28:15was there was a jointly owned unit that
  • 00:28:19had this HDL instruction.
  • 00:28:23One of the owners had filed for compensation under the
  • 00:28:26existing protocol language and was able to hand us a paper contract
  • 00:28:30showing that they had an obligation that they weren't able to fulfill under a
  • 00:28:34contract that fit neatly in the existing words and
  • 00:28:38the protocols and was granted. Austin Energy, who is the
  • 00:28:41other co owner of the power plant, who also suffered
  • 00:28:45the exact same HDL instruction
  • 00:28:48and had the exact same ramifications or
  • 00:28:53impact as the first owner,
  • 00:28:56similarly filed seeking compensation under this language.
  • 00:28:59However, Austin Energy did not have a paper contract
  • 00:29:04that they could hand us. And that made it a
  • 00:29:07little difficult because the language as it exists
  • 00:29:10today talks about a bilateral contract. And so the way we've
  • 00:29:14always. We haven't had very many of these in the first place, but when we
  • 00:29:17have had them, one of the things we ask for is a paper contract
  • 00:29:21that you can show us that you had this obligation that was
  • 00:29:25negatively impacted by the HDL override.
  • 00:29:29After we spent some time in ADR
  • 00:29:32with Austin Energy on this issue,
  • 00:29:35they were able to demonstrate that their city code language
  • 00:29:40specifically says that their obligation to serve
  • 00:29:44their customers is a contract.
  • 00:29:47So we found that language
  • 00:29:51being law, specifically stating that their obligation
  • 00:29:55is a contract or contractual in nature
  • 00:29:59or something along those lines, was sufficient to find
  • 00:30:03that under the protocol language they had demonstrated a bilateral contract.
  • 00:30:08If that language had not been there in the city code,
  • 00:30:11this very well may not have been granted and we very well may have said,
  • 00:30:15sorry, you get no relief. Whereas the, the other
  • 00:30:18party, who, other part owner of the power plant did
  • 00:30:22get relief because they had a paper contract and you don't.
  • 00:30:25We thought that was a little bit inconsistent. And we thought
  • 00:30:29that for other munis who might come along later that have
  • 00:30:33the exact same situation but don't happen to
  • 00:30:36have this language, magic language in their code,
  • 00:30:40would have a totally inconsistent result.
  • 00:30:43So we talked with Austin Energy about how it would be good for
  • 00:30:47munis in general. They were fortunate that they had
  • 00:30:50very good specific language in their code. But for others that
  • 00:30:54are similarly situated, it might be good to clarify
  • 00:30:58in the protocols that if you're a NOIE who's
  • 00:31:01got this obligation to serve load, you don't
  • 00:31:05have to demonstrate or show us a
  • 00:31:09paper contract or have to get lucky
  • 00:31:12enough to have code language that specifically
  • 00:31:16says your obligation is contractual or is a contract.
  • 00:31:20So that's what we were trying to fix initially was
  • 00:31:24to clarify that there
  • 00:31:29could be. There are these situations where
  • 00:31:34like NOIE's that have this obligation to serve their customers.
  • 00:31:38They may not, because of the nature of.
  • 00:31:42They may not have a paper contract like other private parties
  • 00:31:45might. So we were trying to just fix that with
  • 00:31:501190. And I think that if 1190 goes away,
  • 00:31:54we're back there and that's where we are, where we might have inconsistent
  • 00:31:58results where one party can come in and they happen to have a
  • 00:32:02paper contract, they can show us the other party is a NOIE,
  • 00:32:06a muni or a co-op or something. They don't happen to have a paper
  • 00:32:09contract and they don't have really good language in their
  • 00:32:13city code saying specifically that it's contract and they won't get any relief
  • 00:32:17for the exact same instance.
  • 00:32:20So that was the. What we were trying to solve here.
  • 00:32:24And if 1190 is not adopted,
  • 00:32:27that's where we'll be. So just a little context on kind of how
  • 00:32:31this came about.
  • 00:32:34I appreciate it and I don't have any, anything else to say.
  • 00:32:38Thanks. Okay, thank. Thank you both.
  • 00:32:42Austin, are you. I don't remember where
  • 00:32:46you were. Did you finish the presentation or do you need to wrap up this
  • 00:32:49slide? No, I'm done. All right,
  • 00:32:53any questions for Austin before we go to Eric Blakey?
  • 00:33:01All right, Eric, are you ready?
  • 00:33:05I'm ready. Can you hear me? I can hear you.
  • 00:33:09Awesome.
  • Clip 4.2 - WMS/WMWG Discussion Summary - Eric Blakey
    00:33:13 Okay, so I'm Eric Blakey with Ferdinand Co
  • 00:33:17Op. I am the chair of the Wholesale Market subcommittee
  • 00:33:21and was asked to give a little bit of the history that
  • 00:33:26this NPRR had with our committee and
  • 00:33:29the stakeholder process. So was filed a
  • 00:33:33year ago on July 26th filed by Austin
  • 00:33:37Energy, CPS Energy, Denton Municipal,
  • 00:33:42Garland Power and Light, Greenville Electric Utility
  • 00:33:46System. They proposed
  • 00:33:50adding a provision for recovery of a demonstrable financial
  • 00:33:53loss arising from a manual high dispatch
  • 00:33:57limit override to reduce real power output in
  • 00:34:01the case when that output is intended to meet queasy load obligation.
  • 00:34:05This went to PRF on August 10th
  • 00:34:09and Austin Energy provided an overview.
  • 00:34:13Participants asked questions and discussed some of the alternative
  • 00:34:17approaches and such as participation in the
  • 00:34:21day ahead market and ultimately requested
  • 00:34:25additional review by WMS. Let me say before I go
  • 00:34:29forward, these summaries of these meetings are sort of
  • 00:34:32from my notes. There may have been some other things discussed.
  • 00:34:36I just want to say these were what I identified as
  • 00:34:39the High level Discussion the the Next
  • 00:34:43opportunity this was discussed at the WMS meeting on September 6th
  • 00:34:46of last year. Again, Austin Energy provided
  • 00:34:50a no review, discussed issues
  • 00:34:55around NOIE not having a physical contract. As we just discussed,
  • 00:34:59stakeholders questioned distinctions between applicability to an individual
  • 00:35:03resource versus an entire portfolio of resources and
  • 00:35:07WMS voted to table and refer this to the
  • 00:35:11Wholesale Market working group. On September 22,
  • 00:35:15the WNWG meeting was held and again Austin Energy
  • 00:35:19provided an overview. Explained that the purpose
  • 00:35:23is to level the playing field for noise, not give preferential
  • 00:35:26treatment. The group discussed questions regarding concerns by
  • 00:35:30market participants and whether the scope should be narrowed to protect smaller entities
  • 00:35:34or expanded next slide on
  • 00:35:40July 26th no,
  • 00:35:44sorry. On November
  • 00:35:4717th we had comments filed by the residential
  • 00:35:51consumers. They proposed edits to narrow the scope rather
  • 00:35:55than expanding the scope as suggested by
  • 00:35:58NPRR1190 they proposed clarifications to remove
  • 00:36:02uncertainty. The comments said they reflect
  • 00:36:06what they believe was the original intent of the protocol section,
  • 00:36:09which was to cover a narrowly tailored issue and not just any contract
  • 00:36:14to serve load. On December 1,
  • 00:36:18WMWG met and reviewed the residential comments.
  • 00:36:22On December 4, Reliant filed comments proposing
  • 00:36:26edits to include queasies rather than only the
  • 00:36:29noise. They argued that reps do not have franchise
  • 00:36:33service territory with captive customers and therefore
  • 00:36:37they are unlikely to have bilateral contracts that cover supply
  • 00:36:41for all customers that they serve or
  • 00:36:45it would be excessively burdensome to provide proof of contracts and
  • 00:36:49hedge purchases to demonstrate financial harm from an HDL
  • 00:36:53override. February 13th
  • 00:36:57WMWG met. They discussed the financial harm when
  • 00:37:01ERCOT issues an override that lowers generation
  • 00:37:05use to serve load and the discussed ways to limit ERCOT's use
  • 00:37:08of the override rather than eliminating the
  • 00:37:12cost relief. On March 4, ERCOT filed comments
  • 00:37:16with clarifying edits on top of the residential consumer comments
  • 00:37:20that were filed in November. On March 6,
  • 00:37:23WMS met and we discussed the status of these
  • 00:37:26discussions at WMWG and we
  • 00:37:30asked ERCOT to work our parties to work with ERCOT
  • 00:37:33to bring back clarifying language for the next
  • 00:37:37WMS next slide.
  • 00:37:44On March 26, Reliant filed additional comments with
  • 00:37:47edits to add ecclesiastation rather than
  • 00:37:51requiring them to submit contracts.
  • 00:37:54On March 27, ERCOT filed comments with additional clarifying edits.
  • 00:37:59Then in April, WMS met discussed
  • 00:38:02payment alternatives for the HDL override and
  • 00:38:06it remained tabled to allow for alternatives to be considered at WMWG.
  • 00:38:11They met. On April 24, ERCOT explained they
  • 00:38:14could not provide a recommendation because the MTR is about the distribution
  • 00:38:18of money WMWG did not reach agreement
  • 00:38:22on a recommendation to bring forward.
  • 00:38:25On May 1st WMS met and endorsed MTR 1190
  • 00:38:28as amended by the March 26th reliant comments
  • 00:38:33and included an attestation requirement for quezzies representing
  • 00:38:37competitive load in their portfolio that are impacted by an HDL override
  • 00:38:41at a resource in their same queasy or one they are purchasing
  • 00:38:45energy from. There were three opposing boats from
  • 00:38:48the consumers, the Residential CMC Steel and Dow
  • 00:38:53and then two extensions by City of Eastland and Bertinellis
  • 00:38:57Co-op. Next slide.
  • 00:39:03On March 9th this was discussed at PRF.
  • 00:39:07They recommended approval with the March 26th reliant
  • 00:39:11comments. At this meeting there were four opposing
  • 00:39:15votes from the consumer segment, residential OPUC,
  • 00:39:19City of Eastland and Occidental and eight abstentions
  • 00:39:23from the Co-Op Section segment which
  • 00:39:27was PEC and then independent generator, Jupiter Power,
  • 00:39:30NextEra, NG, EDF and two
  • 00:39:34from the IPM segments, the NASCA and CENA and
  • 00:39:38the IOU segment linebacker power so 8
  • 00:39:43extensions. On June 13th
  • 00:39:47BRS met again to consider the impact analysis which
  • 00:39:51was approved. Impact analysis determined there would be no budget
  • 00:39:54impact and no project required.
  • 00:39:58There was one opposing vote from the Consumer segment opuch
  • 00:40:02and two abstentions from Occidental and
  • 00:40:06DC Energy. On June 24th tag met
  • 00:40:10and approved as recommended by PRS this time six
  • 00:40:14opposing votes from the Consumer segment,
  • 00:40:17Residential opuc, City of Eastland, City of Dallas, CNC Steel
  • 00:40:21and Lyndell Chemical. One abstention from
  • 00:40:25the IREP group which was Rhythm
  • 00:40:28Power. On August 8th ERCOT filed
  • 00:40:32comments to provide additional detail. I think assistance for the board
  • 00:40:36in the historical ACL override.
  • 00:40:40Next slide. I think this was covered in
  • 00:40:43the other presentations so I'll just be brief.
  • 00:40:46At the August board meetings they discussed concerns regarding
  • 00:40:50the six opposing votes. In response to questions about
  • 00:40:54the impact, ERCOT said there were 12 instances over the last 10 years that there
  • 00:40:58was not a big financial impact but there can be in an instance
  • 00:41:01like a Winter storm Uri event. So this was remanded
  • 00:41:06or this was tabled for the Board to consider at
  • 00:41:10the next meeting in October.
  • 00:41:13On October 2nd the joint consumers filed
  • 00:41:17comments explain their concerns with expanding the entities to
  • 00:41:21receive HDL override payments saying the proposal is contrary
  • 00:41:24to the nodal market wish to remove all HDL override
  • 00:41:28payments not just the eligibility expansion to
  • 00:41:32MOUs and queasies with generation and load but no contracts
  • 00:41:38and so those were filed on October 2nd. The board
  • 00:41:43met again on October 9th and 10th and
  • 00:41:47the R&M Committee voted to recommend to the board to
  • 00:41:50remand it to TAC. As we've discussed
  • 00:41:58any questions or additional comments or anything that I might
  • 00:42:02have left out.
  • 00:42:08I don't see any specific to this, Eric, but I
  • 00:42:12really appreciate you taking the time to do this. I think the kind of information
  • 00:42:17that is probably helpful to TAC maybe
  • 00:42:21when we start considering things and then to the board as
  • 00:42:24well, to see all the discussions that have been had
  • 00:42:29and the work that went into it. And, you know, I think if
  • 00:42:32TAC and the board are looking at this sooner than we would say,
  • 00:42:36oh, you know, this has been at a working group
  • 00:42:39for eight meetings and here are the different discussions they've had and maybe here are
  • 00:42:42the ones we still need to have. So I think this kind of information is
  • 00:42:46helpful. All right,
  • 00:42:50I will turn it over to Eric Schubert.
  • Clip 4.3 - Consumer Presentation - Consumer Presenter
    00:42:54Yes, thank you. This is kind of in lieu of the presentation that
  • 00:42:57was scheduled there to repeat what Eric had
  • 00:43:01said, that we do not support 1190 because it would
  • 00:43:06be inconsistent with the principles and the intent of the nodal
  • 00:43:10market implementation that was done by
  • 00:43:13the commission. It rewards over scheduling power that can't be delivered
  • 00:43:17and as such would force consumers to subsidize inefficient hedging
  • 00:43:20by other market participants in the face of changing conditions.
  • 00:43:26A major reason that the ERCOT market adopted the nodal
  • 00:43:30dispatch and pricing was to avoid paying generators for
  • 00:43:34power that was scheduled and not delivered. And that is important
  • 00:43:37for a couple reasons. One is, of course, fairness, a sense
  • 00:43:41that some of us have hedged against these things and it's important that others do
  • 00:43:44as well and that we should not be subsidizing that. But by putting
  • 00:43:48the. But more importantly, in the long term, by putting
  • 00:43:52risk of delivery on market participants, known as direct assignment and congestion
  • 00:43:55costs, you maximize the value of deliverable power over
  • 00:43:59time. And that is important for the success of this market because
  • 00:44:04you have a situation where you are choosing the
  • 00:44:08site a resource and you therefore
  • 00:44:12focus on deliver the maximize the value
  • 00:44:15of deliverable power, not the value of the capacity of the scheduled power.
  • 00:44:19That leads to more efficiency and more ability to
  • 00:44:23integrate new technologies over time.
  • 00:44:27Secondly, there are opportunities we mentioned hedge and that therefore
  • 00:44:31also increases the value of existing resources that can
  • 00:44:35deliver power at a given time. So that is
  • 00:44:39pretty much the core of our thoughts at this point. Just as a quick review.
  • 00:44:43Thank you.
  • 00:44:48Thank you, Eric. Okay, let's go to our queue. Clayton Greer.
  • 00:44:54Yeah. Did anybody speak up on how we got
  • 00:44:58here in the first place?
  • 00:45:02If my memory serves, it was because ERCOT
  • 00:45:05can't give information on the transmission system to any one market
  • 00:45:09participant, which is a good policy to have.
  • 00:45:12So what was happening was they couldn't tell
  • 00:45:15a unit whether or not they were taking an outage and could or could not
  • 00:45:19start and actually run for the day. And so it
  • 00:45:22was just a game of chicken and
  • 00:45:27whenever they would start, ERCOT would force them off
  • 00:45:30or there was something along that line. But it all related to the fact that
  • 00:45:35there were transmission outages taken on the system and ERCOT
  • 00:45:39couldn't disclose day by day whether a
  • 00:45:43specific line was going to be out or something along those lines. So the arguments
  • 00:45:47for Nodal, I hear them, but there are also confidentiality
  • 00:45:51issues here that are actually causing the cost. So,
  • 00:45:56you know, I've always been a big fan of, you know,
  • 00:45:59do no harm. So if we can't tell
  • 00:46:03somebody whether or not they turn on, they try to do the responsible
  • 00:46:07thing and turn on, we don't want to penalize them for
  • 00:46:10that. I think that's, that's the wrong message. Thank you.
  • 00:46:17Thanks, Clayton. ERCOT on their
  • 00:46:21slides two and three kind of have the background of the case
  • 00:46:24that arose from your question may have been rhetorical, but I
  • 00:46:28don't think they went into that, you know,
  • 00:46:31justification for what was needed.
  • 00:46:34Let's go to Bill Barnes.
  • 00:46:40Yeah, similar kind of train of thought here and I'm trying to
  • 00:46:45make a comparison to the OOM situation
  • 00:46:49which, you know, I would agree, that is, we don't want
  • 00:46:52to find ourselves in a frequent
  • 00:46:56occurrence of having side
  • 00:47:00payments to make generators whole for
  • 00:47:04reliability dispatches that aren't in market. Right. I think,
  • 00:47:08Eric Schubert, that is where I think we're
  • 00:47:12very aligned on is the whole point of moving to Nodal is that prices
  • 00:47:16are the primary motivation for behavior and
  • 00:47:20supply responses and we want that to cover the vast majority
  • 00:47:24of outcomes. The rare
  • 00:47:27instances where an HDL override occurs though, it's really making
  • 00:47:31me wonder if that's really comparable to an OOM situation
  • 00:47:35which was a daily occurrence
  • 00:47:39in the zonal market and really not avoidable based on, you know,
  • 00:47:42trying to dispatch resources based on average shift factor for a zone
  • 00:47:46and not being able to manage inter
  • 00:47:51intrazonal congestion efficiently. But you.
  • 00:47:54There's one question I had for you Eric, is you mentioned this a couple times
  • 00:47:58and I really didn't pick up on it until this discussion.
  • 00:48:01Is you mentioned over scheduling a generator.
  • 00:48:05Over scheduling. We don't want to compensate or reward over scheduling.
  • 00:48:09Can you explain what you mean by that?
  • 00:48:11Thanks. Well, basically what you're talking about in
  • 00:48:15that situation is that you are scheduling more
  • 00:48:19power than is deliverable at a given time and one
  • 00:48:24and so therefore you want to make sure
  • 00:48:27that other arrangements are made. So if
  • 00:48:30that power is not deliverable, there's a deliverable from another
  • 00:48:34source. And to respond to Clayton's
  • 00:48:38comment as well, there is a difference, I understand
  • 00:48:43about the confidentiality and so forth but there
  • 00:48:46are N minus 1 contingencies that can show up in real time
  • 00:48:50that can impact the pricing or the ability to
  • 00:48:53dispatch something safely. And that is not terribly
  • 00:48:57transparent. That is part of the reason you have security constrained
  • 00:49:01economic dispatch. So I think the argument about the transmission
  • 00:49:05lines being confidential doesn't
  • 00:49:08carry weight in this situation because anything in this very
  • 00:49:13tricky, complicated system can pop up and
  • 00:49:17that you just have to live with that. You know, we all have to contract
  • 00:49:22around that kind of thing. So but I think
  • 00:49:25it's just, it's a situation where have to be prepared
  • 00:49:29for the unexpected. That is part of the whole design of the market.
  • 00:49:32And by having backstops and hedging you can deliver power
  • 00:49:37from another source if needed or you just buy from the spot
  • 00:49:40market. That happens. But if
  • 00:49:44something lasts more than a few hours,
  • 00:49:47you have ability to shop around. We have a very active liquid
  • 00:49:51bilateral market that provides alternatives
  • 00:49:54and that should be the primary backstop, not necessarily
  • 00:49:59having the rest of us subsidize that. And I think it also
  • 00:50:02then provides more revenue for wider variety of
  • 00:50:06resources that can deliver power which is good for not
  • 00:50:09only real time reliability but also long term
  • 00:50:12resource adequacy.
  • 00:50:22Thanks Eric. Bill, did you
  • 00:50:25have anything to add?
  • 00:50:29Well, just that I don't know if we have anyone from ERCOT
  • 00:50:32operations on but I believe
  • 00:50:36in these cases and I'll admit my company has never received a
  • 00:50:40ND steel override. Which makes me wonder why I've gotten myself inserted
  • 00:50:44in this debate for so long, invested so much of
  • 00:50:48my time. But it's really a principle if we find ourselves
  • 00:50:52in that situation. But I think from an operational
  • 00:50:56perspective what makes this different to
  • 00:50:59address Eric's concern regarding
  • 00:51:03over scheduling is in this case you, you are receiving
  • 00:51:07as a general conflicting dispatch instructions from ERCOT.
  • 00:51:11You're getting base points for energy that are
  • 00:51:15different from a manual reliability
  • 00:51:19dispatch instruction to solve a different reliability problem such
  • 00:51:23as a voltage issue. So in this case I'm
  • 00:51:26just trying to understand how a generator could actually generator
  • 00:51:30could actually avoid this situation either how
  • 00:51:34they operate their asset or in the bilateral market. And I
  • 00:51:37based on my understanding of when these occur, which again maybe Someone else
  • 00:51:41can speak to that because we have never received one. I don't think
  • 00:51:45you can. And so to Clayton's point, if there's really
  • 00:51:49no way for you to mitigate this outcome
  • 00:51:53as the generator, it just, it doesn't seem fair for
  • 00:51:57you to be financially harmed as well. But I would love to hear someone from
  • 00:52:00Operations explain a little better on when those HCL overrides are
  • 00:52:04issued. Okay,
  • 00:52:07Blake, so if you can explain, but let's see if we can get somebody from
  • 00:52:11ERCOT to respond to that.
  • 00:52:15Yeah, Blake Colt, LCRA can
  • 00:52:19help you with some clarity there, Bill.
  • 00:52:22You know, from our perspective, we don't believe the decision
  • 00:52:25on 1190 or HCL override payments in general
  • 00:52:30are contentious in this body, as proven with the
  • 00:52:33vote a few months ago.
  • 00:52:36But in the spirit of education, we do feel the need to
  • 00:52:40respond to the joint consumers point of view.
  • 00:52:43They state that overrides to generators are
  • 00:52:48issued to generators who are causing reliability issues and that these
  • 00:52:52generators are over scheduling and that the payments are against
  • 00:52:56the nodal market design. I would actually argue that what is against
  • 00:53:00the nodal market design is the HDL override instruction
  • 00:53:04and that the payments are justified. And then just,
  • 00:53:08you know, reading the comments and listening to Eric, I think there's some general confusion
  • 00:53:12about the instances in which these are issued so we can
  • 00:53:16unpack some of our experiences with them.
  • 00:53:20So to me, nodal dispatch generally means the most economic units
  • 00:53:24are dispatched subject to system security constraints
  • 00:53:28and SCHED processes on current topology, current offers
  • 00:53:33and current system needs for dispatch decisions.
  • 00:53:36There's no forward looking ability in SCED and
  • 00:53:39there will always be a need for an operator to apply foresight
  • 00:53:43to the decisions that SCED is making. The ability
  • 00:53:47for ERCOT to issue these instructions is not up for debate
  • 00:53:50and we think that it is necessary for ERCOT to use these in rare circumstances.
  • 00:53:55And so in terms of over scheduling,
  • 00:53:59in my point of view, there's no such thing as this.
  • 00:54:02Resources I'd like to finish,
  • 00:54:06please. Go ahead, go ahead. Resources that receive HCL
  • 00:54:09overrides are resources that are economically prioritized by SCED
  • 00:54:13and are not held back from dispatch because of events
  • 00:54:17that would require constraints for security have not
  • 00:54:21yet come to pass. So one such reason would be the operator
  • 00:54:25needing to pre posture
  • 00:54:28for an upcoming out,
  • 00:54:32which is what Clayton was, I think
  • 00:54:36leading on to. And so here's our example that we've experienced in
  • 00:54:40the past. We had a unit being dispatched economically to its HDL
  • 00:54:45and then the ERCOT operator was made aware of an upcoming
  • 00:54:48Outage that when taken would require our unit to move
  • 00:54:52to a lower output to ensure reliability.
  • 00:54:55The operator requested that our unit back down ahead of time so
  • 00:54:59that they could manually put in a constraint to allow SCED to manage the
  • 00:55:03unit at a lower level. The period of time
  • 00:55:06where ERCOT would be holding back this dispatch ahead of the outage
  • 00:55:10constraint to activate what we care about this manual process
  • 00:55:14might take over an hour to implement. All the while
  • 00:55:18SCED is wanting to move our economical unit up based on
  • 00:55:21current system topology. The dispatch in this period goes
  • 00:55:25against the nodal market design. We count on our resources
  • 00:55:29in our fleet to minimize the cost to our customers.
  • 00:55:33And when the tool is taken out of our belt, it is only right that
  • 00:55:36recovery is considered. I'll note that just because you receive an HDL
  • 00:55:41override, it does not guarantee that you will receive cost
  • 00:55:44recovery. ERCOT reviews evidence and must prove
  • 00:55:47that the QSE is made short generation versus load
  • 00:55:52because of the instruction. This payment is in a similar
  • 00:55:56vein to RUC make hole payments or RUC DE commitment payments.
  • 00:56:00When a reliability instruction is issued that causes demonstrable harm,
  • 00:56:04cost recovery is allowed. So I guess
  • 00:56:07from our perspective, we fundamentally disagree with
  • 00:56:11the position that these payments aren't justified and believe
  • 00:56:14that at minimum the black line provision should be upheld.
  • 00:56:19Thanks. May I respond?
  • 00:56:23Eric, can we, can we just get to you in the queue? That's no problem.
  • 00:56:28Okay, I see Freddie on and I was going
  • 00:56:31to ask again if somebody from ERCOT wanted to speak. So let's, let's go
  • 00:56:34to Freddie and then we'll, we'll get back to the queue.
  • 00:56:38Sure. Thanks. Caitlin. Yeah, just, just responding to Bill's
  • 00:56:43question and I think his characterization
  • 00:56:47of when HDL overrides are used is
  • 00:56:50fairly accurate. And it's essentially whenever
  • 00:56:55there's a reliability concern or constraint on the system that
  • 00:56:59SCED cannot see. So, for instance,
  • 00:57:03a voltage issue SCED is
  • 00:57:06solving for thermal constraints, not voltage constraints.
  • 00:57:10So the control room will use HDO
  • 00:57:14overrides to curtail a generator that
  • 00:57:17may be causing a voltage issue
  • 00:57:22to worsen. So they will utilize HDL
  • 00:57:27overrides to resolve that kind of constraint or
  • 00:57:31any other constraints similar to that that SCID isn't able to
  • 00:57:34manage or has visibility to.
  • 00:57:43So hopefully it answers the question.
  • 00:57:45Okay, I think you did. Thanks, Freddie.
  • 00:57:48Let's go to Eric Goff.
  • 00:57:52So I want to circle back to the procedural history conversation.
  • 00:57:57Austin started this off by saying this is a small
  • 00:58:00dollar amount. We've used these HCL repair payments not
  • 00:58:04very often. And then Doug explained the
  • 00:58:10disputes that were filed and the ADRs that were filed by Austin Energy and
  • 00:58:14the other party where one party and Austin
  • 00:58:18Energy Co own a generator together.
  • 00:58:22Doug was careful not to say that party. So I'll continue that,
  • 00:58:25although I think it's fairly obvious who that is.
  • 00:58:29And the other party had a contract that
  • 00:58:34was written and so that met the bilateral contract
  • 00:58:37requirement on the current protocol. But Austin Energy had
  • 00:58:41to point to its charter to
  • 00:58:45make a similar argument. And Doug pointed out that
  • 00:58:50what about all the other nois that don't have
  • 00:58:54the so called magic words in their charters? So we need
  • 00:58:57to expand this protocol allowance to
  • 00:59:01include additional NOE parties that don't have the so
  • 00:59:05called magic words in the charter. And as
  • 00:59:08we got the NPRR filed, Bill thought
  • 00:59:13about well what about all the other people that don't have those words?
  • 00:59:18And maybe it's not just Nois but other QSEs that also
  • 00:59:22need similar protections. And now we have
  • 00:59:25a another NPRR that
  • 00:59:29is not up for discussion today that extends a similar
  • 00:59:33payment to congestion mitigation plans.
  • 00:59:36So this gets to my fundamental concern with this argument
  • 00:59:40over relatively small dollars that this is a very
  • 00:59:44slippery slope. And for that
  • 00:59:48reason I really want to go back to what Eric Schubert said,
  • 00:59:51which is this about the principles of the middle market? Yes, there are distinctions
  • 00:59:55about why we did things in the past that may or may not have been
  • 00:59:58appropriate. But at some point we need to stop
  • 01:00:02and we need to figure out what do we need to do to get these
  • 01:00:06situations reflected in pricing so we don't need to have side payments.
  • 01:00:10And while many of us can argue for our past
  • 01:00:14decisions as to why they are appropriate, I really think we need to be forward
  • 01:00:18looking and make a decision in the next few months that
  • 01:00:21we need to stop this sort of side payment before it balloons into
  • 01:00:25something unrecognizable. Thanks.
  • 01:00:31Okay, thank you Eric. Let's go to Eric Schubert.
  • 01:00:37Thanks Eric. It's very well spoken. And one of my
  • 01:00:40concerns is the long term unintended consequences that
  • 01:00:44undermines not only in terms of efficient dispatch
  • 01:00:47but also the process that we have in ERCOT
  • 01:00:52that incorporates new technologies. As I mentioned before,
  • 01:00:55it is really looked at by other parts of the country.
  • 01:00:59They describe it as connect and manage. That allows
  • 01:01:03us to not only support retail choice very effectively, but also incorporate
  • 01:01:07new technologies very efficiently. The other thing
  • 01:01:10I would respond to Blake's comment is
  • 01:01:14the fact that there are all kinds of contingencies that show up at the
  • 01:01:18last minute that people can't prepare for and
  • 01:01:21then all of a Sudden your unit is back down because of it.
  • 01:01:25And the whole reason ERCOT dispatches is that the electronic,
  • 01:01:29the electrical flows and the electrical
  • 01:01:33engineering associated with that cannot be responded to by the
  • 01:01:37market in time. So we all have to prepare for those
  • 01:01:40kind of contingencies. And it was, whether it's manually done or something through SCID.
  • 01:01:44SCID is a nodal. SCED is a
  • 01:01:49pathway, but not the complete pathway to
  • 01:01:53implement the type of market
  • 01:01:56design that allows for connect and manage and
  • 01:02:00efficient resources and also hedging. So SCED
  • 01:02:04is not the be all and end all. It is a means to an end.
  • 01:02:06And is it an incomplete means? Yes,
  • 01:02:10it is. But the principles, and this is what goes back to Eric Golf
  • 01:02:14says, is the fact that if you start having side payments, they explode
  • 01:02:19and then you undermine the efficiency of the market. You add to
  • 01:02:22the costs of the market. When instead you just say,
  • 01:02:25okay, unit I have could go off at any time or not be delivered time.
  • 01:02:29I need to have a plan B or plan C involved. It's as simple as
  • 01:02:33that. Thank you.
  • 01:02:40Okay, thank you, Eric. All right.
  • 01:02:44I see a kind of side conversation in the chat.
  • 01:02:50Eric Goff said something important about getting this into price because I assume
  • 01:02:53you mean the LMP answer was yes. So other
  • 01:02:57than that, the Q is clear.
  • 01:03:03Any other discussion on this?
  • 01:03:05Does anybody want to propose a
  • 01:03:09motion at this time?
  • 01:03:15Yeah, I'll move that we table this for one month.
  • 01:03:20Okay. I believe we can't
  • 01:03:24time certain the motion, but you've
  • 01:03:28had that conversation with Corey, so literally 100,000
  • 01:03:32times. We'll table it with. I don't
  • 01:03:35think we need a second because I
  • 01:03:39suspect we can put this on the combo ballot. Does anybody have
  • 01:03:42objections to putting cable,
  • 01:03:46NPRR1190 on the combo ballot? I see
  • 01:03:50a comment from Alicia, though, so let's go there.
  • 01:03:54I just have a quick question. What is the purpose of tabling it? We're just.
  • 01:03:58I mean, is there anything left to say here or
  • 01:04:02more work to do? Homework. What are, what are we looking at here?
  • 01:04:06Is we're just tabling it to stall it. Yeah, I'm happy
  • 01:04:09to talk about that. So we have time before
  • 01:04:14our next board meeting, given the procedural schedule laid
  • 01:04:17out previously and we have the opportunity
  • 01:04:21to discuss this with multiple
  • 01:04:25parties. I think the intention is
  • 01:04:29to have discussion of this at the next meeting as well and
  • 01:04:33take action at the next meeting. But I'm happy to hear
  • 01:04:36otherwise.
  • 01:04:40I don't know that we're going to get any different discussion out
  • 01:04:44of any of these parties. I think this has been Pretty well spoken
  • 01:04:47to. I don't know.
  • 01:04:51Just from my perspective, I think we should, we should either vote it up or
  • 01:04:55vote it down. Okay, is that
  • 01:04:59I. So now Corey will have to help
  • 01:05:03me out. So we do have a motion and a second for the
  • 01:05:06table. I think we could take another
  • 01:05:10motion, but we would have to vote on the motion to table first.
  • 01:05:13Is that correct, Corey?
  • 01:05:18Well, it goes back to. Did you recognize the second when you, when you stopped
  • 01:05:21it to say we don't need a second because we can put this on the
  • 01:05:24combo ballot, Was that wiping away the proposed
  • 01:05:27motion or is that one still on the table? I mean, if at least were
  • 01:05:30to make a motion to vote it up or down, someone could then make a
  • 01:05:32motion to block to table to block it so we can get
  • 01:05:36around to the same spot. But that's at chair's discretion of.
  • 01:05:40Do you think you have a live motion and second
  • 01:05:43the table, which means it would not go on the combo ballot. We take it
  • 01:05:46up right now. Okay. I think we will
  • 01:05:50get there either way. So let me ask Alicia. Is that a motion
  • 01:05:54of some sort or is that just a topic for discussion?
  • 01:06:01Really quick, has anybody's vote changed? I mean,
  • 01:06:05honestly, this is the same vote that
  • 01:06:08we've been doing.
  • 01:06:12Okay, let's, let's try to get through the queue
  • 01:06:16really quickly. Brian, are you for sure. Never mind.
  • 01:06:25No, I'm not for sure. Never mind. I mean, my,
  • 01:06:29my comment really is the, the real
  • 01:06:33issue, it feels like, is that the LN
  • 01:06:36LMP doesn't match what ERCOT Operations wants the plant
  • 01:06:40to do, which is a much bigger issue than
  • 01:06:46the HDL override.
  • 01:06:49And in terms of like Alicia's question about the
  • 01:06:53principle, I still feel like if the generator
  • 01:06:57is doing something in response to a HDL
  • 01:07:01override, I'm going to want to be made whole versus the opportunity. So my
  • 01:07:06opinion isn't changing here.
  • 01:07:10Okay, yes, I see the point of order. This is
  • 01:07:13my mistake. Eric. We don't have a live motion,
  • 01:07:17but we will get to you very shortly. At which point point you can
  • 01:07:20remake your motion. So let's go
  • 01:07:24to Ned and then Eric Goff.
  • 01:07:33So I'm probably in the similar boat
  • 01:07:36where my position hasn't changed on this, but I thought Bill
  • 01:07:40did a really good job laying out the three considerations
  • 01:07:44at the outset. And so I wanted to see what
  • 01:07:48exactly is our decision set? You know, Alicia, you brought it up
  • 01:07:51as an up or down vote, but is it voting
  • 01:07:56this up is going back to the board as is or
  • 01:08:00rejecting outright, or is there a Third path that would involve
  • 01:08:04modifications.
  • 01:08:08I'm happy to speak to that. Yep.
  • 01:08:11Please go ahead, Eric. So first, I'd like to remake my motion to
  • 01:08:15table and then to address the points made
  • 01:08:18by Alicia and Ned just now. Well,
  • 01:08:21okay, let's pause. Is there. So the motion is to table. Is there
  • 01:08:25a second on the motion?
  • 01:08:34Second, from Eric Schubert. All right, thank you.
  • 01:08:38Sorry about that. Please continue, Eric Goff. Sure.
  • 01:08:41So I think there is opportunity for
  • 01:08:46additional discussion. First,
  • 01:08:49we could choose to narrow this back to
  • 01:08:53the original proposal from Austin Energy
  • 01:08:56and others so that we don't continue the slippery slope.
  • 01:09:01Second, we could modify this to remove HDL
  • 01:09:05override payments and have
  • 01:09:08that be effective at a time that we can
  • 01:09:12include these other out of scared actions
  • 01:09:16into the LMP price, I think, as maybe was suggested by Brian.
  • 01:09:21And third, you know, TAC could take
  • 01:09:24the same action that it took previously, and I could lose a vote.
  • 01:09:27Again, I do think that the
  • 01:09:31board seemed to want us to do something
  • 01:09:35to consider additional points maybe other than what we've considered previously.
  • 01:09:39And so, at minimum, if you're going to take that third step, I think
  • 01:09:42you need to be responsive to the board's questions and not just
  • 01:09:46repeat the same action again. That said, I think that there's an
  • 01:09:49opportunity for us to consider the first two
  • 01:09:52options, and I imagine that
  • 01:09:56the second one might be preferable for most people, which would again,
  • 01:10:01keep our current protocols
  • 01:10:04in place while we work on something to include these
  • 01:10:08other activities that are not currently in SCED. In some future
  • 01:10:12change to SCED. That, of course, would be after RTC.
  • 01:10:16Thanks.
  • 01:10:19Okay. Eric Schubert, I believe you had a comment.
  • 01:10:22Not just a second. Yes. I think just sending it back
  • 01:10:26unchanged is just pretty much telling the board
  • 01:10:30we don't care. I think what Eric is talking about is constructive
  • 01:10:35because we're talking about how do we possibly improve pricing,
  • 01:10:38how do we deal with these issues, how do we narrow the scope? We need
  • 01:10:42to put more thought into this to
  • 01:10:45respond to the board's concerns. And so
  • 01:10:49I think the time that we have, because the meeting's in December,
  • 01:10:52we should take advantage of it. So let's
  • 01:10:56table it, continue the discussion. Hopefully we can come up with something that
  • 01:11:02the board will find will be responsive to its remand.
  • 01:11:06Thank you. Okay. Okay.
  • 01:11:10I appreciate that. I would make the point. I don't think that
  • 01:11:13a remand means we need something totally different by
  • 01:11:17necessity. I just think it means send it back and
  • 01:11:21consider those things. But I agree that we should show
  • 01:11:25that we consider the things in their discussion. I Will pause
  • 01:11:28here and see if ERCOT staff or commission
  • 01:11:32staff would like to weigh in on this discussion before
  • 01:11:36we do the vote.
  • 01:11:45All right, Caitlin, this is Barksdale.
  • 01:11:48Awesome. Okay, go ahead, Barksdale. Thanks for
  • 01:11:52the invitation. And first, I just want to
  • 01:11:56acknowledge that the timing of our comments at
  • 01:12:00R&M last month on this NPRR,
  • 01:12:04I recognize that it may be frustrating to folks,
  • 01:12:08especially given how much this NPRR is already been discussed. And so,
  • 01:12:13you know, as part of our continuing evolution
  • 01:12:17of how staff should be involved here,
  • 01:12:22you know, I pledge to you all that we will try to
  • 01:12:27signal earlier when we're
  • 01:12:30starting to have problems or concerns
  • 01:12:34about issues that might be going up to the board.
  • 01:12:37You know, again, it's. It's the Goldilocks moment, and we're working
  • 01:12:41to try to figure out where that is. Second, with regard
  • 01:12:44to the specific conversation here, you know, I think the idea
  • 01:12:49to table it and to continue discussing the merits and
  • 01:12:54underlying issues, you know, I don't. I don't foresee
  • 01:12:58staff having any issues with that. I think it may lead
  • 01:13:01to a productive outcome. You know, just little
  • 01:13:05Barksdale's opinion here, I don't know that sending it
  • 01:13:09back up to the board unchanged will yield a different result.
  • 01:13:16And I guess the last thing that I would say
  • 01:13:20is I don't
  • 01:13:23think staff agrees with the joint
  • 01:13:27consumer's opinion that the NPRR has drafted
  • 01:13:31today would violate commission
  • 01:13:35rules. And our concerns
  • 01:13:39are more focused on the breadth of scenarios
  • 01:13:44under which, you know, folks could claim,
  • 01:13:52you know, a desire to have make whole payments.
  • 01:13:57So, you know, I think we'd be interested to see where further conversations
  • 01:14:00go and. And hopefully,
  • 01:14:03you know, we'll have a light hand and let you know as
  • 01:14:07things progress.
  • 01:14:15Okay. Appreciate all that feedback.
  • 01:14:18Thank you, Barksdale. All right,
  • 01:14:22let's let Corey take it away,
  • 01:14:29all right? On the motion to table NPRR1190,
  • 01:14:33we will start up with Consumers with Eric Goff.
  • 01:14:36Yes, thank you. Naba.
  • 01:14:45Yes, thank you.
  • 01:14:48Garrett. Yes, sir. Thanks,
  • 01:14:51sir. Eric Schubert. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:14:54Thanks, sir. Mark Dreyfus.
  • 01:15:03Mark Dreyfus is still with us. Oh, got your yes in the chat. Thanks,
  • 01:15:06sir. Nick? Yes,
  • 01:15:10thank you. Thanks, sir. On to our co-ops, Mike.
  • 01:15:14Yes, thank you. Blake.
  • 01:15:19No, thank you, Eric.
  • 01:15:22Blakey? Yes, thank you,
  • 01:15:26John. Yes,
  • 01:15:31thank you. On to our independent generators,
  • 01:15:35Brian. Yes, and I'm
  • 01:15:38looking forward to this SCED solution.
  • 01:15:42Thank you, Caitlin. Yes,
  • 01:15:46thank you. Bob Helton. Yes, sir.
  • 01:15:50Thank you, sir. Ned? Yes, thanks for it.
  • 01:15:55Thanks, sir. On to our ipm.
  • 01:16:00Yes, thank you, Jeremy.
  • 01:16:04Yes, thank you. Thank you, Ian.
  • 01:16:08Yes, thank you. Yes, thank you, Corey. Thanks, sir.
  • 01:16:12Matt. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:16On to our IREP Bill. Yes,
  • 01:16:21thank you. Jennifer.
  • 01:16:25Thank you. Jay. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:16:29Chris. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:33Onto our IOUs. Richard?
  • 01:16:35Yes,
  • 01:16:39thank you. David.
  • 01:16:42Yes, thank you. Colin.
  • 01:16:45Yes, thank you. Rob for Keith.
  • 01:16:50Yes, thanks, sir. On to
  • 01:16:53our munies. Curtis for Ruffle.
  • 01:16:58Yes,
  • 01:17:03thank you. Jose.
  • 01:17:05Yes, thank you. David.
  • 01:17:09Yes, thank you. And Alicia.
  • 01:17:13Yes, I'm sorry,
  • 01:17:16Alicia. Double checking that. Was that yes or no? I'm sorry.
  • 01:17:20Yes. Okay, thank you.
  • 01:17:25All right, motion carried.
  • 01:17:30All right, thanks, Corey. So we will see
  • 01:17:34NPRR1190 back here for November
  • 01:17:38tax. I think if always I would ask if
  • 01:17:42there are going to be comments with an alternative proposal that those get filed
  • 01:17:47a week before tax so everybody has time to consider those.
  • 01:17:53Any other questions or comments on Web90?
  • 01:18:00Okay, we are onto the PRS report.
  • 01:18:04Diana. I think all of these were unopposed,
  • 01:18:08but I know we'll we'll have to discuss 1180, so why don't
  • 01:18:12you go through the first slide and we'll see what we can do after
  • 01:18:15that. Do you want me to review the revision request summary
  • 01:18:19quickly?
  • 01:18:22Oh, yes.
  • 01:18:25Okay. Sorry, Ann. That's okay.
  • Clip 5 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions - Ann Boren/ IMM
    01:18:30 All right. So I think there's 10 revision requests on the TAC agenda.
  • 01:18:34Some of them are going to remain tabled, but ERCOT does support all
  • 01:18:38the revision requests. We'll point out that no. 264 is
  • 01:18:42still pending. NPRR1235 for impacts.
  • 01:18:46NPRR1180 that does have a revised IA and now is
  • 01:18:50essentially no impact. But we can discuss that later on
  • 01:18:54under the PRS report. And then 1249 has a 25
  • 01:18:58to 45k impact for the reasons for revisions.
  • 01:19:02Out of the 10, seven of them are under
  • 01:19:06the general system and process and improvements.
  • 01:19:09One is an ERCOT board or PUC directive,
  • 01:19:13one is regulatory and one false. And that strategic
  • 01:19:16plan objective two CFSG did
  • 01:19:20review the NPRRs and none of them have credit implications.
  • 01:19:24And then for IMM opinion,
  • 01:19:28I don't believe we received a response from the IMM on
  • 01:19:31any of the revision requests. We did reach out to them,
  • 01:19:35but I don't think we heard back from them. So I'm not
  • 01:19:38sure if IMM wants to provide any comments at this time. Time.
  • 01:19:43Okay, thanks, Ann. So going back, we are on Agenda
  • 01:19:47Item 5, Review of Revision request summary, ERCOT market
  • 01:19:50impact statements and opinions.
  • 01:19:54And so back to Ann's question. Is anybody here from the IMM
  • 01:19:58and would they like to speak to the supervision request?
  • 01:20:08This is Jeff McDonald with imm. We don't have
  • 01:20:12any specific comments to add for the TAC meeting on any
  • 01:20:15of these that we haven't already put through the stakeholder
  • 01:20:19process. So we are additional
  • 01:20:23opinion free at this point.
  • 01:20:26Okay. Okay.
  • 01:20:29So just to confirm, the IMM has no opinion on
  • 01:20:33any of the revision requests laid out here.
  • 01:20:36We have no additional opinion beyond what we've already offered in
  • 01:20:39other meetings in the stakeholder process.
  • 01:20:49Okay.
  • 01:20:54All right. Then I think going forward. So for the TAC
  • 01:20:57report, it does require an I am of opinion to
  • 01:21:01be captured there. So we're going to capture it as no opinion under there
  • 01:21:06unless we've seen IMM comments filed on a revision request.
  • 01:21:13But we. But we can take it offline with you, Jeff.
  • 01:21:17That's what I was going to suggest. We can take it offline, but we are
  • 01:21:21required when we have these revision requests at TAC
  • 01:21:25to have the opinion on them. So I think we just want
  • 01:21:28to confirm, even if you made a comment at a working group
  • 01:21:32or something that does that still stand and when.
  • 01:21:37Okay. Bill Burns, is that
  • 01:21:41a comment on this section?
  • 01:21:45Yeah, I was just going to express a stakeholder opinion
  • 01:21:49that the IMM opinion of no opinion
  • 01:21:53is better than pending. Thank you.
  • 01:21:57Yep. I think that we will just clear that up and make sure we
  • 01:22:01have the way to get that from the imm, because I think it's sort
  • 01:22:05of more of a formal no opinion of it stands in
  • 01:22:09this process. So we'll make sure we are getting that.
  • 01:22:12And I think that's also consistent with what we've done in the past.
  • 01:22:16If the IMM feels strongly enough about an issue to weigh
  • 01:22:20in, they can support or not support. But in the
  • 01:22:24vast majority of instances, like especially for procedural
  • 01:22:29NPRRs, it's. It says no opinion. I think we've done that in
  • 01:22:33the past. Pending was confusing to
  • 01:22:36me, like, okay, we're waiting to hear from when these get
  • 01:22:39to the board or what. So no opinion would be better than pending.
  • 01:22:44Okay. It sounds like it may have been a miscommunication and just
  • 01:22:48the kind of reporting style. So we'll get that cleared up offline,
  • 01:22:51Bill.
  • 01:22:56All right, Any other questions or comments there?
  • 01:23:03Okay, now we are on to the PRS report.
  • 01:23:07Sorry, Diana and Ann. I tried to jump the guns.
  • 01:23:10Diana, do you want to go ahead and go through your first slide?
  • Clip 6 - PRS Report - Vote - Diana Coleman
    01:23:14 Okay. Good morning, TAC. This is Diana with CPS Energy
  • 01:23:18for the October PRS report.
  • 01:23:22We have two proposals that were unopposed
  • 01:23:25and did not have an impact. 12:45 came
  • 01:23:29to or comes to us from ERCOT. This was making
  • 01:23:32some clarifications and in
  • 01:23:36preparation for the RTC initiative that's going live next year.
  • 01:23:41On September 12, PRS voted unanimously to recommend approval
  • 01:23:45as amended by the September 5 ERCOT comment and
  • 01:23:49as revised by PRS. And then on October
  • 01:23:5317, we voted unanimously to endorse and forward to tag the September
  • 01:23:5712 PRS report. And the
  • 01:24:01July 30 IA.
  • 01:24:041248 also comes to us from ERCOT,
  • 01:24:07which is correcting some language on the ERCOT pulled
  • 01:24:11settlement meter netting.
  • 01:24:149-12-PRS voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted.
  • 01:24:18And then on October 17th, we voted unanimously to
  • 01:24:23endorse and forge TAC the September
  • 01:24:2612th PRS report and the August 16th
  • Clip 6.1 - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
    01:24:31IA. All right, and then moving
  • 01:24:34forward to 1180, we've had a revised
  • 01:24:39IA on this one and we also had some recent TCPA
  • 01:24:43comments that were submitted. Caitlin, what would you like for
  • 01:24:47us to. Well, let me, let me
  • 01:24:50just tee it up. This is sponsored to us from Oncor.
  • 01:24:54This is revising the amendments to the commission
  • 01:24:58rules on the certification certification criteria.
  • 01:25:02On September 12, PRS voted to recommend approval of
  • 01:25:061180 as amended by the August 28 comments.
  • 01:25:10There were two abstentions on that vote.
  • 01:25:13And then October 17, we voted unanimously to
  • 01:25:17endorse and forward to TAC the September 12
  • 01:25:21PRS report and the October 16 IA.
  • 01:25:24There were some discussion on 1180 because of the high
  • 01:25:28cost that's associated with it and the FTEs that ERCOT is
  • 01:25:32citing that they needed. And so that is why
  • 01:25:36we have a revised IA for tax consideration this
  • 01:25:40morning. And then we also have those TCPA comments.
  • 01:25:45Let's finish this slide, Diana, and then
  • 01:25:50see if we can put the other three on the combo ballot. And then we'll
  • 01:25:53go back to 1190 or 1180,
  • 01:25:581249. This,
  • 01:26:01this is coming to us from CEN view. This is publishing the
  • 01:26:05shift factors for all active transmission constraints.
  • 01:26:09On September 12th, PRS unanimously voted to recommend
  • 01:26:12approval. On October 17th, we endorse and boarded
  • 01:26:16to tag the September 12th PRS report and
  • 01:26:20the October 15th IA with a priority and rank
  • 01:26:25of 2026 and a rank of 4740.
  • 01:26:31Okay, thanks, Diana. So let's pause here.
  • Clip 6.2 - NPRR1245, Additional Clarifying Revisions to Real-Time Co-Optimization
    01:26:35 I would propose that we put if
  • Clip 6.3 - NPRR1248, Correction to NPRR1197, Optional Exclusion of Load from Netting at EPS Metering Facilities which Include Resources
    01:26:38you're 1245, 1248 and
  • Clip 6.4 - NPRR1249, Publication of Shift Factors for All Active Transmission Constraints in the RTM
    01:26:43 1249 on the combo ballot.
  • 01:26:47Are there any objections to that?
  • 01:26:54Okay, so that would be. We would be adding to the combo ballot
  • 01:26:58to recommend approval of NPRR1245 as
  • 01:27:01recommended by PRS in the 1217 PRS
  • 01:27:05report, to recommend approval of NPRR1248 as
  • 01:27:09recommended by PRS in the twelve seventeen PRS
  • 01:27:13report and to recommend approval of NPRR1249
  • 01:27:16as recommended by PRS in the ten
  • 01:27:20seventeen PRS report. All right, so Corey,
  • 01:27:24let's add those to the combo ballot and then let's
  • 01:27:27pick up NPRR1180.
  • 01:27:31As Diana indicated, we have a revised IA and
  • 01:27:35then we have stakeholder comments. Let's start with ERCOT on the ia
  • 01:27:40and then let's go to PCPA on their comment.
  • 01:28:10Troy Anderson's on the phone and speak to the ia.
  • 01:28:17Hey, thank you. Okay. Can you hear me?
  • 01:28:20Sorry, I'm in a different situation than usual here. Yes,
  • 01:28:24Troy Anderson with ERCOT Portfolio Management. After the
  • 01:28:28discussion at PRS last time,
  • 01:28:31we restructured the IA here for 1180,
  • 01:28:35and you'll see that we moved all the discussion about FTEs
  • 01:28:39down to the bottom in the comments, making it more informational. And we noted
  • 01:28:43that Texas House Bill 5066 and the
  • 01:28:48Commission Rule 25.101 are
  • 01:28:52also driving factors around the need for this staffing.
  • 01:28:55We put in the notes at the bottom that we will be including this staff
  • 01:28:58in our upcoming budget submission for 2026 and
  • 01:29:0227. And we're hoping that by this
  • 01:29:06restructure of the IA, it takes
  • 01:29:09less of the onus on 1180 for these
  • 01:29:13FTEs because it is a collective need across the various
  • 01:29:17requirements.
  • 01:29:27Okay, we are
  • 01:29:30at.
  • 01:29:34Mark Dreyfus.
  • 01:29:38Hi, can you hear me? I can.
  • 01:29:41You've got your audio to work. Okay, thanks. Well,
  • 01:29:45I had the dial in as one of these dial in callers because my
  • 01:29:48computer audio is not working. Okay. So it's
  • 01:29:53working so visually. So thank you.
  • 01:29:57First off, I want to say that I raised concerns about the IA
  • 01:30:01in the Protocol Revision Subcommittee because I thought that
  • 01:30:05the IA inappropriately attributed costs
  • 01:30:09to the NPRR that were
  • 01:30:14already being incurred by ERCOT. And ERCOT has
  • 01:30:17resolved that issue in the revised ia. And I really
  • 01:30:20appreciate that. And thanks to ERCOT for
  • 01:30:24making that change.
  • 01:30:28This NPRR has been in process for a
  • 01:30:32year and a half. We worked through it thoroughly with a bunch of different
  • 01:30:35approaches at plwg. It was voted
  • 01:30:39out unanimously at prs, and I think it's ripe
  • 01:30:43for moving forward. I know there were some comments filed last night,
  • 01:30:48and I generally agree with those comments. But I
  • 01:30:52hope we can approve this NPRR today and
  • 01:30:56the comments that TCPA filed we can address through a
  • 01:31:01forthcoming NPRR. So when it's appropriate,
  • 01:31:04Madam Chair, I'm happy to make a motion and move forward.
  • 01:31:11Okay, so let me get to. Okay,
  • 01:31:14so, so let's take the motion would be to
  • 01:31:18approve and then we have a second. So I don't Want to mess this up
  • 01:31:21again, but I do. Caitlin, let me
  • 01:31:25jump in and maybe I'll mess up for it. I'll be the bad guy on
  • 01:31:28this one. Well, I was about to ask about the tabling.
  • 01:31:32Yeah, go ahead, Corey. Yes, exactly right.
  • 01:31:34Even obviously we've got TCPA comments to review.
  • 01:31:38Even if everyone was in love with 1180 as it sits
  • 01:31:42now, it has a related PGRR that's still at Roth.
  • 01:31:47Not for anything contentious that I'm aware of, but the IA wasn't ready for review
  • 01:31:50at the last Roth meeting, so Roth tabled it to wait for the IA
  • 01:31:54to come back. So the related PGRR won't be
  • 01:31:58here until next month's TAC, hopefully. And as was
  • 01:32:02discussed earlier, procedurally they should be going to the timber board anyway.
  • 01:32:06So in any other case, we would be using TAC as the backstop
  • 01:32:09to let the related revision requests catch up and then they could all march to
  • 01:32:13the board together. So ideally we'd be looking for a motion
  • 01:32:16to table 1180, and then we would take it up next month,
  • 01:32:20hopefully along with this PGRR, and then get it onto the same board meeting.
  • 01:32:23And that I would hope would go on the combo ballot. Unless folks
  • 01:32:27feel strongly otherwise. The alternative would be you vote out 1180 today,
  • 01:32:32tee it up for the board in December, and then if something weird
  • 01:32:35were to happen with the PGRR for some reason and it didn't make it to
  • 01:32:38next month, TAC, you're now showing up to the December board asking them
  • 01:32:42to table it in a way that they've never had to do before because we
  • 01:32:45always collect them before we send them on. So I don't know that approving it
  • 01:32:49today would necessarily break anything, but there'd be a risk that you could just avoid
  • 01:32:53by tabling it today and taking this up at the
  • 01:32:56next TAC meeting.
  • 01:32:59Okay, I just didn't want to have to backtrack
  • 01:33:03like we did on the last item. So nothing prohibits us
  • 01:33:07from voting this forward today, but the typical practice
  • 01:33:11is to wait on all the associated
  • 01:33:15revision requests so they can go to the board as a package.
  • 01:33:19So we do have the I went ahead and took the
  • 01:33:23motion and second to approve so I wouldn't have to backtrack
  • 01:33:28there. We do have stakeholder comments. Yes, and then.
  • 01:33:31But the other reason to table regardless would be
  • 01:33:35that we are still waiting on the associated PGRR.
  • 01:33:40So worst case scenario, if that didn't get through nxt,
  • 01:33:44one would go to the board without the other
  • 01:33:47hearing that. Mark and Eric, do you
  • 01:33:51want to rescind or Change the motion to
  • 01:33:55approve. I'm happy to speak to that.
  • 01:34:00Okay. Unless Mark wants to.
  • 01:34:06No, go ahead. Okay. So.
  • 01:34:10So Corey, I appreciate that it is our practice to keep
  • 01:34:15these items together. So when I apply the guide revision pinning
  • 01:34:20at ROS or metering guide
  • 01:34:23revision pinning at WMS, we have table
  • 01:34:27things TAC until it catches up so they go
  • 01:34:32up together. However, given that the board meets only
  • 01:34:37every so often, both these items, if they're
  • 01:34:40approved, would go up to the board at the same meeting.
  • 01:34:44So I don't see a downside to this.
  • 01:34:49There's a lot of activity going on
  • 01:34:53related to large loads and it's got a lot of attention.
  • 01:34:56And this NPRR has been
  • 01:35:00worked on for a year and a half and
  • 01:35:05I think that there is more work to do on the growth of large
  • 01:35:09loads in this state that we can
  • 01:35:12handle in future revision requests.
  • 01:35:17But I'm ready to move forward and so I think I'd
  • 01:35:20like to keep the motion.
  • 01:35:28Okay. Mark, do you agree with that?
  • 01:35:32Why don't we just go through the queue and if at the end
  • 01:35:35of the discussion seems appropriate to withdraw the motion, fine or
  • 01:35:39otherwise would just vote on it. Perfect. That was
  • 01:35:42my plan. So we do just the
  • 01:35:46status update. So everyone's clear, we have the motion to
  • 01:35:50approve on the table. But as is also
  • 01:35:53our normal practice, just emotion does not end discussion.
  • 01:35:57So we have a cue. My proposal would
  • 01:36:01be to go through Bob Hilton,
  • 01:36:04Resme, Bob Whitmire, let TCPA review their comments because
  • 01:36:08I have already said they would. Martha would like to go after
  • 01:36:11that and then unless somebody has
  • 01:36:16a motion to call the question and then we would go back to the motion.
  • 01:36:20Does that work for everybody?
  • 01:36:24Okay. Bob Hilton. Yeah, I actually I
  • 01:36:27was going to talk about the tabling issue and I'm not sure they have to
  • 01:36:30withdraw. I think somebody makes a motion to table and get a second
  • 01:36:34on that that overrides the original motion anyway. So that can take
  • 01:36:37place. But keep me in the queue until after TCPA
  • 01:36:45gives their presentation.
  • 01:36:51Okay. Resme, Bob Whitmire, do either of you feel the same
  • 01:36:54way? Do you want to let Michelle go
  • 01:36:58first? Okay. Bob Whitmire,
  • 01:37:04do you want. Do you want to wait until after Michelle reviews the comments?
  • 01:37:07Please let Michelle go. Okay, so we the queue
  • 01:37:11of stands at 11:04. It's our correct queue. We will take it
  • 01:37:14up after Michelle
  • 01:37:18presents these comments. Michelle, are you ready to go?
  • 01:37:22Can you hear me? I can.
  • 01:37:26Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate it.
  • 01:37:30So I think the comments are somewhat self explanatory.
  • 01:37:34I appreciate the perspective From Mark
  • 01:37:38and Eric, I think
  • 01:37:42the issue here is our members are very
  • 01:37:45supportive of low growth coming. We think that's a good thing for the
  • 01:37:50we want to make sure needed for it
  • 01:37:53is built. However, I think
  • 01:37:57we would like to be in a situation where all of
  • 01:38:01the market participants, including policymakers
  • 01:38:06and legislators, have the same confidence
  • 01:38:10in the load forecast that the TDS
  • 01:38:14have. And I don't feel that that is the case right now.
  • 01:38:18Our members want to make sure that there is transparency,
  • 01:38:23that there is kind of similar symmetrical
  • 01:38:27information for these large loads that are coming to
  • 01:38:31the type of information that's required for generation in
  • 01:38:35the queue. These are going to be substantial costs.
  • 01:38:40I think the numbers I had seen were 15, 16 billion dollars and
  • 01:38:44I would expect that that's going to go up from there.
  • 01:38:48I think that, you know, it's been very clear from some of the
  • 01:38:53interim committee discussions over the last couple of months that there
  • 01:38:57is some skepticism about what
  • 01:39:01is real and what is not.
  • 01:39:05And we need to make sure that when we are planning
  • 01:39:08for transmission, we are also planning planning in
  • 01:39:13CDR as well. And we need to make
  • 01:39:17sure that before we start incurring billions of dollars that will go
  • 01:39:21directly onto customer bills and quite honestly primarily
  • 01:39:25residential consumer bills,
  • 01:39:28that we know that we are not
  • 01:39:31building transmission needlessly. So I think we
  • 01:39:34are all for building what's needed. We think
  • 01:39:38that it would be wise to table this and
  • 01:39:43let the PGRR catch up and have some additional discussions on
  • 01:39:48some of those transparency measures that could potentially be included.
  • 01:39:53And with the board not meeting until December,
  • 01:39:56there's no harm in doing that because it can
  • 01:40:00still go to the next board meeting even if
  • 01:40:03we table it and bring this back up in November.
  • 01:40:07So that's where we are.
  • 01:40:11Even in the discussions on Hospital 5066,
  • 01:40:15there have been comments made, whether it's by members of the legislature
  • 01:40:19or by the chairman of the commission that maybe
  • 01:40:23the bar has been set a little too low. And so
  • 01:40:27just making sure that we all have a clear understanding
  • 01:40:32of what qualifies for being included in
  • 01:40:36the transmission planning and what doesn't, that everybody's
  • 01:40:39kind of using the same criteria to make that determination
  • 01:40:44and that we are going to build and ask rate
  • 01:40:48payers to pay for transmission that is truly needed and
  • 01:40:52not just speculative or duplicative in nature. So those
  • 01:40:57are our comments. I think
  • 01:41:00that there are probably several of my members that are going to have some things
  • 01:41:03to say about it. And with
  • 01:41:08that I'm happy to let others talk and I appreciate the time
  • 01:41:12for us to lay this out.
  • 01:41:15Okay, thank you, Michelle. Let's actually go to Christie
  • 01:41:19from ERCOT first and then will take up the rest of the queue.
  • 01:41:24Sure. And I'm glad to wait in the queue if you'd prefer.
  • 01:41:28I just wanted to thank folks that have been working with us tirelessly
  • 01:41:33to get us to this point. I just want to remind
  • 01:41:36folks that we do have legislation that requires
  • 01:41:39ERCOT to accept the load from the transmission service
  • 01:41:43providers, but that doesn't mean that that transmission automatically
  • 01:41:46gets built. We have to take that in for our planning
  • 01:41:50purposes. And then there's still additional processes to
  • 01:41:54continue to go through to define the reasonableness
  • 01:41:57of that load as it moves through the RPG process and then ultimately
  • 01:42:02the CCN process where the commission is the
  • 01:42:05ultimate decider of what does actually move into
  • 01:42:08that rate base. And I think I've heard some
  • 01:42:12of the commissioners also talk about before that they do
  • 01:42:15expect a rulemaking to decide and define
  • 01:42:19that reasonableness. And so I think that might be some things that are better
  • 01:42:23left to policy decisions at the commission. I also
  • 01:42:26want to add that we've been continuing to learn through this process
  • 01:42:30and I believe ERCOT has made some presentations to some of
  • 01:42:34the recent working groups to talk about how we're going to improve the
  • 01:42:39RFI process to better collect collect information from the transmission
  • 01:42:43service providers, how we're going to streamline that and how we're going to get more
  • 01:42:46information. And so that is work that continues. I mean,
  • 01:42:49we're committed to working with the stakeholders to make sure we
  • 01:42:53can share at an appropriate level to
  • 01:42:57give both stakeholders and our regulators that certainty.
  • 01:43:01And then just one last point to one of Michelle's points is just
  • 01:43:05to remind folks that just because we build more transmission doesn't
  • 01:43:09mean it's an added, you know, a direct increase to
  • 01:43:13the residential consumers of Texas, because as you add more
  • 01:43:16load to the state, it does change that denominator and
  • 01:43:19how rates get adjusted. But again, that ends up
  • 01:43:23being an ultimate decision at the commission about what gets approved to be built.
  • 01:43:30Okay, thank you, Christy.
  • 01:43:33Go to resme.
  • 01:43:42Thank you. So we
  • 01:43:46greatly appreciate all the work done by TDSPS on this NPRR
  • 01:43:50and definitely don't want to put roadblocks on this for passing.
  • 01:43:55But we do feel that there is time for this to pass because of
  • 01:43:59the corresponding
  • 01:44:02figure. So that's why we are asking
  • 01:44:07if we can have a little bit more time to
  • 01:44:12add clarity on the substantial
  • 01:44:16load category C, to make it as accurate
  • 01:44:20as possible. We do support
  • 01:44:23large load growth because that is what makes the competitive market
  • 01:44:27successful and we completely agree with making
  • 01:44:30prudent transmission investment needed to support
  • 01:44:34this that is needed to make this whole
  • 01:44:39grid work. So we completely understand that and
  • 01:44:43support it.
  • 01:44:46And we do believe that even if
  • 01:44:50discussed table this might need more
  • 01:44:54time as Christy said to develop an
  • 01:44:59appropriate mechanism. So our ask is not
  • 01:45:04to develop the exact criteria now
  • 01:45:08but to add some language that the attestation
  • 01:45:12will be based on some standardized criteria
  • 01:45:16which could be accomplished by adding some language
  • 01:45:20like the letter from the TDSP officer attestation
  • 01:45:24to loads
  • 01:45:28based on criteria defined in other binding document
  • 01:45:32or like TAC approval process or some
  • 01:45:36methodology. And I think that can
  • 01:45:39be done. And I'm not saying we need to make desktop edits
  • 01:45:43right now. We have time in the next three weeks to add what
  • 01:45:47is the appropriate language for that and
  • 01:45:51get this passed because this
  • 01:45:54is as Christy said required by the rule.
  • 01:45:57And we are coming at
  • 01:46:01this from all different sides like as
  • 01:46:05a load, we are concerned about the
  • 01:46:08impact of building transmission but
  • 01:46:13also want transmission to be built for actual loads.
  • 01:46:17We want, we support this large growth, we serve this large
  • 01:46:21load. So we want transmission to be
  • 01:46:24built. But looking at ERCOT's October
  • 01:46:2816 comments, seeing all the impacts on
  • 01:46:31the transmission cases that comes out and the
  • 01:46:37cost impacts from the Permian Basin study, all of those gives us pause.
  • 01:46:42From a rep perspective, we feel like this could have
  • 01:46:46a big chunk of impact on a transmission
  • 01:46:50if the load addition is not
  • 01:46:55accurate. If it is accurate, that is the value. If it is
  • 01:46:58not accurate, then it can make a big chunk on the cost
  • 01:47:02and that could impact the
  • 01:47:05retail market competition if transmission
  • 01:47:10becomes the biggest chunk and it makes the
  • 01:47:13wholesale prices not that effective,
  • 01:47:16right? And overall from a market
  • 01:47:20perspective, from a gen investment perspective, we believe
  • 01:47:24this has the biggest impact because the market needs
  • 01:47:29to trust what load is coming.
  • 01:47:32We do agree and understand
  • 01:47:36that TDSPs are inundated by requests
  • 01:47:41from large loads and we do believe
  • 01:47:44that there is large loads coming. But what
  • 01:47:49we are hearing is not a standardized process and we are seeing
  • 01:47:53a lot of reports saying questioning the total load
  • 01:47:57that is coming and we see the impact of that in the forward curves
  • 01:48:02market doesn't trust us. And unless you
  • 01:48:06make a standardized
  • 01:48:10process that everybody can rely on,
  • 01:48:13the market won't be able to bet on it and
  • 01:48:17invest to bring the generation that is needed to
  • 01:48:20serve this load and bring and make the market
  • 01:48:24successful. So all we ask is to
  • 01:48:29add some language that this will be a standardized process and we will
  • 01:48:33work on what the standardized process is and
  • 01:48:37that could be it could be similar to
  • 01:48:41the standardized process that we are using for gen
  • 01:48:45interconnection, like the certain
  • 01:48:49criteria that are met in considering the generation
  • 01:48:52in planning studies or the cdr.
  • 01:48:55So those kind of studies could be or
  • 01:48:59those kind of criteria could be developed for adding
  • 01:49:04these loads into the reliability studies.
  • 01:49:09Thank you.
  • 01:49:14Okay. Bob Whitmire,
  • 01:49:21thank you. Just real briefly I'll point out my comments on 1202
  • 01:49:25would substantially fund all of the costs related
  • 01:49:30to ERCOT staffing requirements on this one. Thanks.
  • 01:49:38Okay, we did get that updated IA though,
  • 01:49:43so let's go to but
  • 01:49:46understood on the staffing. That's my point.
  • 01:49:50Good. 12 Oak all of this
  • 01:49:54and also in this thing is
  • 01:49:58nothing to connect loads or generation to the system.
  • 01:50:02This is just to think about it. Thanks.
  • 01:50:09Okay, thanks Bob. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on the
  • 01:50:13IA we were looking at, but I think that that's something to continue
  • 01:50:16to drill down into to make sure people are
  • 01:50:20understanding what pays for what in regards to the FTEs.
  • 01:50:26Appreciate the comments. Let's go to Martha.
  • 01:50:29Yeah, thanks Caitlin. Good morning. This is Martha Henson from Oncor.
  • 01:50:33I wanted to respond to the TCPA comments and then also
  • 01:50:36expanded expand a little bit on a couple things that Mark Dreyfuss and Christy
  • 01:50:40mentioned. So Oncor is the sponsor of NPRR1180.
  • 01:50:44This NPRR has been pending in the stakeholder process
  • 01:50:47for 18 months or so now.
  • 01:50:51As someone mentioned earlier, the language that it's founded on is
  • 01:50:54actually based on SB 1281 from the 2021
  • 01:50:58sessions. It's also based on a subsequent PUC
  • 01:51:01rulemaking that concludes included around the end of 2022. And also
  • 01:51:06from House Bill 5066, which expanded on
  • 01:51:09the 1281 language during this most previous legislative
  • 01:51:13session. Today in the protocols,
  • 01:51:16a customer has to have a signed interconnection agreement
  • 01:51:20to get an ERCOT RPG project endorsement
  • 01:51:23for the projects needed to serve that customer. And that construct
  • 01:51:27has gotten us farther and farther behind over the past eight years or
  • 01:51:31so. Since that language was created in our ability
  • 01:51:34as a utility to serve customers in a timely way,
  • 01:51:39the statutory and rulemaking changes, they effectively
  • 01:51:42make this protocol language outdated and
  • 01:51:46it's time to adjust the protocols to reflect that.
  • 01:51:50I think it's also time to eliminate the lack of clarity that
  • 01:51:53exists today around how the RPG process works
  • 01:51:58for forecasted load and load seeking interconnection.
  • 01:52:01Oncor is open to discussing these additional refinement
  • 01:52:05opportunities with the TCPA members.
  • 01:52:09We do need to work through this carefully due to the customer
  • 01:52:13confidentiality issues that this could present.
  • 01:52:16But we'd ask that that effort be done separately from NPRR1180 and
  • 01:52:20would encourage TAC to support NPRR1180 as it is
  • 01:52:24either today or in November with the language that ERCOT provided
  • 01:52:27in its Aug. 28 comments. Those comments from ERCOT
  • 01:52:31were approved by PRS. As Diana mentioned earlier,
  • 01:52:35I would note that the last vote taken at PRS was unanimous
  • 01:52:38and there were several TCPA members that actually participated
  • 01:52:42in that last vote and voted for this. So our
  • 01:52:45request is to separate this new request into
  • 01:52:49a separate effort. Oncor is prepared to engage in those discussions.
  • 01:52:53I do not believe we can have all of TCPA's wish list items
  • 01:52:58fleshed out in the three weeks between now and the November TAC.
  • 01:53:02But again, we're available to talk about what is workable
  • 01:53:06and look forward to working with y'all. Thanks.
  • 01:53:14Thanks, Martha. Let's go to Bob Hilton just.
  • 01:53:18Yeah, real quickly. This is kind of for Martha, too,
  • 01:53:21Martha, is what you're saying is you
  • 01:53:25talked about breaking this out into a different NPRR,
  • 01:53:28which I can agree with a lot of that extent. But you
  • 01:53:32also mentioned about working with TCPA and
  • 01:53:35anyone that has some comments to try to refine it between now
  • 01:53:39and the next TAC meeting. Do you
  • 01:53:43believe there's some stuff in here that would be able to get in there to
  • 01:53:46refine this a little further and then continue with the rest of that in
  • 01:53:50another NPRR? I'm trying to see if we can explain this a
  • 01:53:53little better. Yeah, I understand. And I think I've
  • 01:53:57communicated to some of the TCPM members, at least one.
  • 01:54:00I know that my preference is to not
  • 01:54:04monkey with the language between now and TAC. It was
  • 01:54:07reviewed by multiple subcommittees, working groups, et cetera.
  • 01:54:11I think that the language is good as it is. However, I will make
  • 01:54:15the commitment to work on this separate revision request to
  • 01:54:19see what can be done. And we want to do that deliberately and carefully
  • 01:54:23due to the confidentiality issues that have been mentioned.
  • 01:54:26So I don't see that it's necessary to reference
  • 01:54:30another document today in the protocols
  • 01:54:34that doesn't even exist yet. I would rather just keep the language clean
  • 01:54:37and move forward in November with that, Bob. All right,
  • 01:54:41thanks.
  • 01:54:52That was it.
  • 01:54:59Okay. Thank you, Bob and Martha. Let's go to Bill
  • 01:55:02Barnes. Thank you. I had a question
  • 01:55:06for Christy. I think it was answered in some
  • 01:55:09of the discussion, but just making sure NPRR1180 does not have any
  • 01:55:13impact on what ERCOT is doing for the Permian Basin
  • 01:55:17reliability Plan. Correct.
  • 01:55:21It does not. The Permian plan is the
  • 01:55:26study process and been approved. Okay. Just making sure.
  • 01:55:29Yeah, we and I do think this discussion is
  • 01:55:33valuable. I also see the benefits of 1180 and providing
  • 01:55:38kind of clearer categories for these
  • 01:55:41loads. But I do think it's valuable for
  • 01:55:44TAC to be aware of these growing
  • 01:55:49significant impacts on transmission planning
  • 01:55:54and our market with large loads and the lack of transparency and
  • 01:55:58really an insufficient process to help verify those loads.
  • 01:56:02We have proposed an alternative approach in
  • 01:56:05the Permian Basin Reliability Plan project that would
  • 01:56:09really add an additional step where there's a refundable
  • 01:56:12deposit posted by loads to help ERCOT identify
  • 01:56:16these loads. So I wholeheartedly agree with the
  • 01:56:21need for, for more and I do think that's
  • 01:56:24appropriate for a different discussion and another process
  • 01:56:28yet to be defined. But as we continue to proceed down
  • 01:56:31this road without those important steps, and I'm going to direct your attention
  • 01:56:34to NPRR1247 that's going to be discussed at ROS
  • 01:56:39next week, there's a very similar impact for a
  • 01:56:43different part of the transmission planning process. We cannot continue
  • 01:56:47down this road without adjusting our policy to reflect
  • 01:56:51what is the world that we live in now that has changed significantly.
  • 01:56:55So for awareness. I agree this is a good discussion to
  • 01:56:58have. So I just want to make sure that was aware
  • 01:57:02for other TAC members to tune in and engage. We need,
  • 01:57:06we need a lot of thought put into these processes to improve
  • 01:57:09them given the reality we live in now. Thanks.
  • 01:57:14Okay,
  • 01:57:18thank you, Bill. Let's go to John
  • 01:57:22Hubbard and then Eric and then Brian. Maybe you
  • 01:57:25can ask on Mike so Christy can answer on Mike.
  • 01:57:28John yeah, John Russ Hubbard with TIEC.
  • 01:57:33We're sensitive to TCPA's concerns and agree
  • 01:57:37that it's important not to have unnecessary transmission build out.
  • 01:57:42But defining a criteria for validate for a validation
  • 01:57:45process seems like a longer and a broader conversation. So a separate
  • 01:57:49NPRR on that seems like the right approach.
  • 01:57:52And considering the statutory mandate, TIC supports moving this NPRR
  • 01:57:56forward for the December board, whether that means this month or
  • 01:58:00next month. Thanks.
  • 01:58:06Okay. Eric Goff.
  • 01:58:11Yes, I think another NPRR this topic
  • 01:58:15does make sense and I look forward to that
  • 01:58:18discussion. I do think there is one
  • 01:58:22comment previously about whether or not the market believes
  • 01:58:25this load is coming and you know, whether or not people can
  • 01:58:30bet on that I think was the word that was used.
  • 01:58:34I don't think that's the role of
  • 01:58:38this NPRR is to send the market signal one way or another,
  • 01:58:42but it's really to comply with the
  • 01:58:46laws that Martha mentioned. So that's an important
  • 01:58:50topic. I agree with you, Bill, that more transparency
  • 01:58:53and more insight into that is important,
  • 01:58:57but I think it's a separate topic.
  • 01:59:04Okay, thank you, Eric. Brian.
  • 01:59:09Hi, Christy. I'm just
  • 01:59:13hoping to get some more clarification about the RPG
  • 01:59:16changes you mentioned. And then you also mentioned a
  • 01:59:21prospective commission rulemaking. I just don't have any information
  • 01:59:25about the scope or timing on that. And so you could
  • 01:59:29help out. I'd appreciate it. Yeah. So just for clarity,
  • 01:59:32Brian, it wasn't really changes to the RPG process,
  • 01:59:36but it's thinking about the processes that we went
  • 01:59:40through last year as we went into actually the RTP planning
  • 01:59:44cycle and how we collected these load forecasts
  • 01:59:48from the transmission service providers. And so
  • 01:59:51what we've been working and I think has been shared in a couple of stakeholder
  • 01:59:55discussions is how we're going to combine some of our efforts
  • 02:00:00into a survey or an RFI that we will
  • 02:00:03do to the transmission service providers where we're going to be collecting
  • 02:00:06large load integration type information, the forecast
  • 02:00:10information we need for the RTP that can also be used as a part of
  • 02:00:13our long term load forecast process here at ERCOT.
  • 02:00:17And so it's collecting better data from the TSPs
  • 02:00:22in a more refined format. Last year we collected
  • 02:00:26information, then we found we needed additional information. We had to go back
  • 02:00:29out as a part of our different processes at ERCOT. So we're trying to refine
  • 02:00:33that. So those are the improvements that we're already making
  • 02:00:38as far as the commission process.
  • 02:00:42I don't personally have an update on any
  • 02:00:45of their timing, but I do know at least one of the commissioners has been
  • 02:00:49very adamant about the need for creating
  • 02:00:53rules about what is reasonable load as
  • 02:00:57they start to look at those in the CCM process.
  • 02:01:02And if you don't mind, since I do have the mic,
  • 02:01:05couple of other things just to throw in.
  • 02:01:08I think, you know, you hit it, Bill,
  • 02:01:12by saying that we can't keep planning the system the way we always did.
  • 02:01:16Things are changing a lot more rapidly. I think that's the reason
  • 02:01:20why we saw HB5066. They recognized that we
  • 02:01:23needed to change the planning rules and how we take that
  • 02:01:27load forecast information in. And we have to be able to
  • 02:01:31do that. And we're willing to work with Ferts to
  • 02:01:34get that certain so everyone has better information
  • 02:01:38as we continue to evolve the process. But I think we continue to believe that's
  • 02:01:42probably another revision request that we need to
  • 02:01:45look at in the future.
  • 02:01:53Okay, thank you, Christy.
  • 02:01:57All right, Ned,
  • 02:02:01Thanks, Caitlin. And Christie, this is actually probably another question for you.
  • 02:02:05You know, the bill had the question about The
  • 02:02:09Permian plan. And I was, I was wondering if this is something
  • 02:02:12that y'all will also need for the 2024 RTP to
  • 02:02:16move forward or. And then second question
  • 02:02:20is in the IA with the extra FTEs,
  • 02:02:25it sounds like from the discussion there will be some of this additional,
  • 02:02:29you know, additional scrutiny through the improved RFI process
  • 02:02:35and you know, ability to better process some of these applications
  • 02:02:40that you might actually get some of that additional scrutiny. And then as you mentioned,
  • 02:02:43there's there will be additional screens at the AT RPG
  • 02:02:47and certainly through the CCN process of the commission,
  • 02:02:49which I think we had understood that to be
  • 02:02:53kind of how this, how this policy would end up shifting a lot of the
  • 02:02:56burden anyhow is that a lot of it moves to the CCN
  • 02:03:01process to evaluate.
  • 02:03:05But. Yeah, so those are
  • 02:03:09the two questions I had. Yeah. So I guess
  • 02:03:12first question about does it impact the 2024
  • 02:03:17RTP. The planning guides do give us discretion of what load we
  • 02:03:20use today. What I would clarify is that before we would
  • 02:03:25start to be able to take any projects that are recommended in
  • 02:03:28the RTP and move them through the regional planning group process,
  • 02:03:32we would need to have the updated rules
  • 02:03:36in place before we could start reviewing those RPG projects,
  • 02:03:40endorsing those projects and moving them through the process.
  • 02:03:44As far as this revised RFI process that we're going
  • 02:03:48to utilize for collecting low forecast
  • 02:03:51Data for the 2025 RTP, looking out
  • 02:03:55into 2031, yes, I do believe we will start to get
  • 02:03:59some additional benefits that have been suggested
  • 02:04:03in the tcpa. Comments.
  • 02:04:06Okay, thank you. Well, I appreciate the all the discussion today.
  • 02:04:10And you know, it sounds like there's general
  • 02:04:15alignment that, you know, we could maybe take another month
  • 02:04:19to talk about it or may not be a definitive path
  • 02:04:23forward on making changes to this particular NPRR. But I certainly
  • 02:04:27appreciate the. Sounds like a lot of mutual agreement on,
  • 02:04:31you know, try and find ways to provide additional clarity which
  • 02:04:35I think brings benefits to lots of different market
  • 02:04:39participants. Thank you.
  • 02:04:45Thanks Ned Roughni. Hey,
  • 02:04:49thank you Christy, for all of ERCOT
  • 02:04:52for working with the TDSP's on
  • 02:04:57improving the transparency. So I
  • 02:05:01believe ERCOT shared it at the SAWG on
  • 02:05:06a survey with the TDSPs.
  • 02:05:09How would that be possibility of
  • 02:05:13looking at maybe some more clarity
  • 02:05:16on what if the load is supporting
  • 02:05:20or working with multiple tds
  • 02:05:25and maybe this is something that we can take offline. But I
  • 02:05:31was wondering what
  • 02:05:34are some of the scenarios that were considered that you ERCOT
  • 02:05:38felt would be covered in with the survey?
  • 02:05:52Sorry, we've got multiple, multiple Phones going off here at once.
  • 02:05:57You know, the information that we're going to try to collect
  • 02:06:02is, you know, similar to what we had in the past. But adding
  • 02:06:06to that, I think historically
  • 02:06:11we've tried to stay
  • 02:06:14out of the business of between the two TSPs,
  • 02:06:18determining that. But that would be something that we could highlight
  • 02:06:22in working with those TSPs.
  • 02:06:27Okay. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you.
  • 02:06:30I also wanted to address one of the clarification that
  • 02:06:36Rick Goff made. So this NPRR,
  • 02:06:39if I understand correctly, defines the load and
  • 02:06:44defines the subcategory where TDSP
  • 02:06:48attestation would make that
  • 02:06:52as the defined load.
  • 02:06:55So that is sending
  • 02:07:00the signal to the markets
  • 02:07:04that this is the load that we are studying in
  • 02:07:07reliability study. This is the load that will be considered that
  • 02:07:11ERCOT is planning for. And the whole
  • 02:07:14objective of this market
  • 02:07:18is for market participants
  • 02:07:22to respond to reports to the
  • 02:07:26information that is published by ERCOT.
  • 02:07:30And I am not sure how
  • 02:07:35any of us can say that the information that is published
  • 02:07:39is the objective of that
  • 02:07:42is not for market to respond. That being
  • 02:07:46said, Martha, thank you so much
  • 02:07:50for offering to work with us on
  • 02:07:54developing a process for it. And I
  • 02:07:59think I saw Richard also seeing that.
  • 02:08:03Thank you. So, Martha, can I ask,
  • 02:08:08what do you envision the process to
  • 02:08:11be? I'm not prepared to speculate on
  • 02:08:15that today. Reshmi, again, as I told you yesterday,
  • 02:08:18this needs a lot of careful deliberation, but we are
  • 02:08:22willing to initiate those discussions with you as
  • 02:08:25early as next week. And maybe, you know, we can provide some sort
  • 02:08:29of assessment to TAC when the NPRR
  • 02:08:33is up for approval with the PGRR in November. Okay.
  • 02:08:37Okay. That will be great. Thank you.
  • 02:08:42Okay. Are you finished with your comments, Rezny?
  • 02:08:46Yeah. All right. Mark Dreyfus,
  • 02:08:51thank you. After listening to this
  • 02:08:55discussion, I have to say I agree with almost everything said by every.
  • 02:09:01I would note that the Commission rule adopted nearly two
  • 02:09:05years ago says the forecasted load and additional
  • 02:09:08load currently seeking interconnection must be
  • 02:09:11substantiated by quantifiable evidence of projected
  • 02:09:15load growth. I think that's what we're talking about here,
  • 02:09:18is how to implement that section and whether
  • 02:09:21it is through the protocols or through Commission rulemaking,
  • 02:09:26we need to have some validation of the
  • 02:09:29claims for future interconnections.
  • 02:09:34I support that. I too, would be happy to work with TCPA
  • 02:09:38on that language. What I'm concerned about is
  • 02:09:41that if we delay the current NPRR,
  • 02:09:45the discussion about how to implement the validation will
  • 02:09:49take a while. And so we will be putting
  • 02:09:53off this NPRR that is ready to go.
  • 02:09:56And frankly, I think everybody recognizes ERCOT is
  • 02:10:00already doing this on an ad hoc basis.
  • 02:10:03What they're doing today is not really consistent with the protocols.
  • 02:10:07And so NPRR and the follow
  • 02:10:11on PGRR will create alignment between
  • 02:10:15what ERCOT is doing today and what is in the protocols.
  • 02:10:19And I think we should move forward with that. And let's
  • 02:10:23just approve this NPRR today, recognizing that we'll
  • 02:10:27have a follow on where we're going to work together to work out this other
  • 02:10:30issue.
  • 02:10:34Okay, thank you, Mark. So we did the
  • 02:10:38motion from you second in a motion
  • 02:10:42from Eric. Second motion from you seconded by Eric to
  • 02:10:45approve. It's still standing. We did have kind
  • 02:10:49of the logistical concern that the
  • 02:10:53PGRR109 I believe is not
  • 02:10:56in front of us yet. So this NPRR
  • 02:11:02could handle those electrical fields,
  • 02:11:06the energy more evenly through through that capacitors
  • 02:11:10that were formed and reduced actually
  • 02:11:15be and radially. Okay. At the point
  • 02:11:19where the the bushing goes conductor
  • 02:11:23goes through the can
  • 02:11:27we mute so we the.
  • 02:11:32The concern is that this would move forward without the the PGRR and
  • 02:11:36I'll leave it at that. Does anybody or cod did you want to add anything
  • 02:11:39to that concern and test it?
  • 02:11:43The point being we can make.
  • 02:11:48Okay, can we mute him?
  • 02:11:52All right. So if the everybody
  • 02:11:56understands that concern motion still on the
  • 02:12:00table and Mark,
  • 02:12:03your intention is to keep it on the table as I understood. So Corey,
  • 02:12:07go ahead and take it away.
  • 02:12:10Corey, go ahead with your comments.
  • 02:12:14Okay, yeah, I was just going to double check. It sounded in the midst of
  • 02:12:17the discussion it sounded like there was a mixture of voted out today
  • 02:12:20versus let's talk about language and voted out next month because procedurally they
  • 02:12:24would hit the same December board meeting. And so I just wanted
  • 02:12:28to double check before we run through this vote that the
  • 02:12:32same folks that wanted to table 1190 because let's take
  • 02:12:35some time to talk about it. It's going to hit the same board meeting
  • 02:12:38feel that there's a benefit to voting out the NPRR without
  • 02:12:43having the related PGRR. I just want to make sure that's a big
  • 02:12:46step forward on TAC. And we would probably need to talk about all the
  • 02:12:49items that are under item 7, all the other things that we've tabled TAC
  • 02:12:53to be the backstop because when we file these related revisions,
  • 02:12:57it's not the complete story in one revision
  • 02:13:00request necessarily. That's why we have a related NOGRR or
  • 02:13:04a PGRR so that when somebody's reading let's say the NPRR and
  • 02:13:08There's language that says, pursuant to Planning Guide section xyz,
  • 02:13:11that section might not exist because the PGRR has to create it, or vice versa.
  • 02:13:15Or there's something as silent in the PGRR and someone can read
  • 02:13:19that and say, wait, why aren't you addressing XYZ without we're addressing
  • 02:13:22XYZ and the related NOGRR. We've historically tabled
  • 02:13:27things at TAC to let everything come together so that when the technical
  • 02:13:31advisory committee is advising the board, they're giving them the full picture
  • 02:13:34and not asking the board to table things to let other things catch up.
  • 02:13:38So I just wanted to make sure that we, TAC as
  • 02:13:42a body feels that voting out something today without the related
  • 02:13:45revision or request, even though it was at the same board meeting in
  • 02:13:49December, that there is a meaningful benefit to that,
  • 02:13:52which. I don't claim to be the smartest guy on the call,
  • 02:13:55so I may be missing it, but I just want to make sure everyone knew
  • 02:13:58that we were deviating from standard practice
  • 02:14:02about how we present material to the board.
  • 02:14:05Okay, understood, Corey. I think,
  • 02:14:08you know, people can vote based on that information as well as substance,
  • 02:14:12relationship information. I think in order to take
  • 02:14:16this vote, we really just need to confirm that with the motioners who
  • 02:14:20were Mark Dreyfuss and Eric Goff.
  • 02:14:23So, Mark and Eric, do you still want this
  • 02:14:28ballot on the table?
  • 02:14:35I think we've said that now repeatedly that we do.
  • 02:14:39Okay. Nobody wishes to make a motion the table to
  • 02:14:43prevent. So just. I think I'm in the queue. I think I'm in
  • 02:14:46the queue. Yeah, please, please go ahead, Eric. Yeah, so,
  • 02:14:50Corey, I appreciate your perspective on this, but this motion was made
  • 02:14:53with intention and this
  • 02:14:58can go to the December
  • 02:15:02board meeting where they can take up the PGRR as well. We'll have an opportunity
  • 02:15:05to vote on the PGRR as well.
  • 02:15:08And it's not about procedure necessarily,
  • 02:15:11but this is something where we have discussed
  • 02:15:16at length how to handle this and comments that were filed yesterday
  • 02:15:21seem to be better handled in a separate revision.
  • 02:15:24And rather than having a chaotic
  • 02:15:28meeting next month where we have a very similar conversation and,
  • 02:15:32and try to have proposals for how to verify
  • 02:15:36load that won't get handled in one month and could probably take six
  • 02:15:39months or more, I'd rather just move this forward
  • 02:15:43and keep next month's meeting more stable.
  • 02:15:48So that said, you know, people can vote how they want to,
  • 02:15:51but I think this is ready to go and has been ready to go.
  • 02:15:55And the motion is made against
  • 02:16:00our usual procedures with the intention of having less discussion on the
  • 02:16:04same topic next month. So if people
  • 02:16:08think that's worthy of discussion, I'm happy to have that discussion. But that
  • 02:16:12was the intention behind what Corey pointed out is an unusual
  • 02:16:16procedure.
  • 02:16:25Okay,
  • 02:16:29thanks. Thank you, Corey. And Eric was
  • 02:16:33in the queue and then out of it back in. So let it's Bob Helton
  • 02:16:37and then resident. Yeah. Just from my
  • 02:16:41perspective, I don't see anything to be gained by voting this
  • 02:16:45up or down today. I see some downside to
  • 02:16:48it that Corey's already laid out there and I thought was appropriate.
  • 02:16:52I don't like going against what we've been doing for years.
  • 02:16:55And I. And I'm not sure that I am in favor of
  • 02:16:59voting up or down on something just because someone doesn't want to have a
  • 02:17:02conversation about it at the next meeting. I think the more conversation
  • 02:17:06we have, the more clearer we are and the better votes we get.
  • 02:17:10So I would be fine with tabling this today.
  • 02:17:17Is that a motion? Sure.
  • 02:17:20We'll see if a second comes up and we'll see what happens.
  • 02:17:24Okay, so motion to table from Bob Helton.
  • 02:17:28Is there a second on that?
  • 02:17:32I can second on that one. Okay. There's a second
  • 02:17:36in the queue from Curtis Campo as well.
  • 02:17:42Comment? Yeah. I wanted
  • 02:17:46to clarify what Eric said earlier and I
  • 02:17:50support the second not because I want to block this. I want to be very
  • 02:17:54clear to all the tds, Visa and
  • 02:17:58we really support this and we want this to go forward.
  • 02:18:02And the to
  • 02:18:05clarify what Eric said. We the ask is not to develop
  • 02:18:10the criteria in the three months. It is
  • 02:18:13just to have a language saying something like this
  • 02:18:17is a standard process that will be developed later or
  • 02:18:20something along those lines so that there is a process
  • 02:18:26that we can work on.
  • 02:18:29And we are supporting
  • 02:18:33this because there is time for this to be approved in
  • 02:18:37November. Thank you.
  • 02:18:42Okay, thanks, Rasmi. Any other questions or comments? So now
  • 02:18:45we have two motions, but we, we always take the motion to table
  • 02:18:49first. So the motion to table NPRR1180. And if this fails, we would
  • 02:18:54go to the first motion. I don't
  • 02:18:58want to belabor this in the interest of having a short conversation,
  • 02:19:01like I just said, but I don't think we necessarily
  • 02:19:05oppose a motion to table. Just would have preferred to advance this forward. And I
  • 02:19:09wonder if Bob's motion could go on the combo ballot.
  • 02:19:12Okay, so it would.
  • 02:19:16Motion to table. Can this go on the combo ballot?
  • 02:19:20Any objections to this going on the convo ballot?
  • 02:19:27So, but then you have your motion on the table. So would they need to
  • 02:19:32withdraw it or at the end of the combo ballot I
  • 02:19:35think we have to take this one separately. Right. Corey, Just because of the multiple
  • 02:19:40motions on this. You're right. To break the standoff,
  • 02:19:43we would need res. Me and Bob Helton to withdraw their motion
  • 02:19:47to table, but then immediately also need Eric to withdraw his motion directly and approval.
  • 02:19:51And then we would clear the deck. So it's. Yep. Okay.
  • 02:19:55Withdraw yours and I'll withdraw mine. Yeah, let's just.
  • 02:19:58Let's just vote on this motion to table. I can.
  • 02:20:01I can support withdrawing it and getting it to
  • 02:20:05the combo ballot. Yeah, either way you want to
  • 02:20:08do it, it doesn't matter. It'll end up at the same place.
  • 02:20:11Okay, so they are supporting withdrawing. So the motion to
  • 02:20:14table goes away. Now we are standing with just the motion to approve.
  • 02:20:18Mark and Eric, are you now withdrawing that motion to approve?
  • 02:20:22Withdrawn. Okay, so then the new proposal would be
  • 02:20:27Withdrawn. Okay, so then the new proposal would be
  • 02:20:31to put the motion to table on the combo ballot.
  • 02:20:37Yes, ma'am. Okay.
  • 02:20:41All right. Any other
  • 02:20:44questions or comments on
  • 02:20:48NPRR1180.
  • 02:20:51All right. And again, this is in. As Martha and
  • 02:20:55a few others I think pointed out, the November tax is in three weeks.
  • 02:20:59So if we are going to consider new comments or
  • 02:21:03something, I would have the typical request to get
  • 02:21:06those in a week or
  • 02:21:10as much time as possible ahead of time so that folks could consider it.
  • 02:21:18Okay. All right. Thank you,
  • 02:21:21everybody. Diana, I believe you had a second
  • 02:21:25slide on your report.
  • 02:21:29Yes, it was an update on 1247.
  • 02:21:33There was a special planning working group meeting that was
  • 02:21:36yesterday. And we just wanted to raise for everybody's awareness
  • 02:21:41that the goal after yesterday's meeting
  • 02:21:44is to have a recommendation for ROS's consideration
  • 02:21:48next month and have that endorsement
  • 02:21:52From ROS to PRS for the November
  • 02:21:5514 PRS meeting.
  • 02:21:59We will be able to, if we take urgency for
  • 02:22:02the language and the IA 1247,
  • 02:22:07if we are in alignment after ROS and at PRS,
  • 02:22:10we'll be able to. And, Corey, you can correct me if I'm incorrect
  • 02:22:14or missing anything, but I believe with urgency we would be able
  • 02:22:18to consider 1247 language
  • 02:22:22and costs that's associated with it, and send it to
  • 02:22:25TAC for the November 20th TAC. And that would make
  • 02:22:29the December board. I know that the commission has
  • 02:22:34requested that schedule, as has ERCOT.
  • 02:22:37And so we're trying to be cognizant and aware
  • 02:22:41of the timing and be receptive to hearing
  • 02:22:45everybody's inputs. So we just wanted to raise for
  • 02:22:4812:47 that those conversations are going, and hopefully
  • 02:22:51we'll have something more solidified next month for tax consideration.
  • 02:22:59Thanks, Dana. Okay, so again, you Know,
  • 02:23:03not trying to dictate any votes, but the,
  • 02:23:06this timeline is what it would take to
  • 02:23:10get NPRR1247 to the December board.
  • 02:23:14And we just wanted people to be aware of that. If that is the goal,
  • 02:23:18that would be November 7th cross and then at
  • 02:23:22November 14th trs, that would be an urgent status
  • 02:23:26vote because we would be voting on the language as well as
  • 02:23:30CIA and then have it at November TAC with
  • 02:23:34all the other contentious items and then take it to December
  • 02:23:383rd board. Does anybody have any questions or comments on
  • 02:23:41that?
  • 02:23:49All right. Okay. Thank you, Diana. Thank you,
  • 02:23:52Caitlin. Oh, hang on. I did want to.
  • 02:23:56Not to put Barksdale on the spot again, but if commission
  • 02:24:00staff wanted to weigh in on that discussion
  • 02:24:04on 1247, that this is the time
  • 02:24:07to do that. Thanks, Caitlin.
  • 02:24:11Yeah, no, I don't have anything to add to that.
  • 02:24:15I know we appreciate everybody paying
  • 02:24:19attention to it and ERCOT staff getting the white paper that folks were waiting
  • 02:24:23for out and are appreciative
  • 02:24:26of efforts to get it moving. So thanks.
  • 02:24:30Okay. All right, thank you.
  • Clip 7 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith
    02:24:33 So now we are back to or on to revision request tables
  • 02:24:36at TAC OBDRR052
  • Clip 7.1 - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
    02:24:41 can remain tabled awaiting NPRR1246 and NOGRR264
  • 02:24:45can remain tabled awaiting NPRR1235.
  • Clip 7.2 - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
    02:24:49 can remain tabled awaiting NPRR1235.
  • Clip 8 - OBDRR053, Alignment with NPRR1131, Controllable Load Resource Participation in Non-Spin, and Minor Clean-Ups - Vote - Nitika Mago
    02:24:53 The new OBDRS. We have
  • 02:24:58OBDRR053.
  • 02:25:00Nitika. Are you talking to us about this?
  • 02:25:17I'm not sure if Nitika is on the phone. This is Ann. So this is
  • 02:25:20just a follow up to NPRR1131, which was,
  • 02:25:24I believe, implemented at the end of
  • 02:25:27August. The SMEs realized that we needed to make changes to the OBD as
  • 02:25:31well to support that implementation. So this OBDR is
  • 02:25:35just aligning with that and
  • 02:25:39it's a no impact.
  • 02:25:43Okay, thank you,
  • 02:25:47Ann. So we'd be looking to Recommend Approval of
  • 02:25:50OBDR 53 as submitted and the
  • 02:25:55October 17th impact analysis. Are there
  • 02:25:59any objections to putting this on the combo ballot?
  • 02:26:06Okay, don't hear any.
  • 02:26:12Let's move on to the RMS report.
  • 02:26:16I would propose, I think because ROS has
  • 02:26:20voting items that we maybe take a break
  • 02:26:24between the RMS and REFS reports to give ERCOT
  • 02:26:28staff a break and let people go grab food
  • 02:26:31and all of that. Does that work for people?
  • 02:26:37Okay,
  • 02:26:43did you see my note? Can we, can we please take a frost. I mean,
  • 02:26:46there the voting items are going to be table. So my
  • 02:26:50report will only take about five minutes.
  • 02:26:53Okay.
  • 02:26:57This is Debbie. I think my report will take just a
  • 02:27:01few minutes. It's just verbal. All right,
  • 02:27:05so you Might take both of them before break.
  • 02:27:08Just a suggestion. That sounds good to me. Let's go ahead,
  • 02:27:12Debbie and Katie and then we will will
  • 02:27:16take a break between the ROS and WMS reports.
  • Clip 9 - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever
    02:27:20Thank you. Well, RMS has been
  • 02:27:24heavily involved in supporting retail market participants for
  • 02:27:28Texas step 5.0 implementation along with MarkeTrak
  • 02:27:32SCR817. We will be making those
  • 02:27:35changes into the market the weekend of November 9th and 10th.
  • 02:27:39So we're getting really, really close. There are a total of
  • 02:27:437 market changes going in that
  • 02:27:47weekend, including the Market Track
  • 02:27:51changes and the Texas app version 5.0. We did
  • 02:27:55finally finish the flight 09.24, which is the
  • 02:27:58market test flight with testing all existing
  • 02:28:03market participants for Texas at 5.0 and
  • 02:28:07that concluded yesterday at 5pm
  • 02:28:12Are there any questions?
  • 02:28:17Thank you. All right.
  • 02:28:24Okay. Go ahead, Kayte.
  • 02:28:27Thanks, Caitlin.
  • Clip 10 - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich
    02:28:32Thanks. Yep. So my understanding is that these three
  • 02:28:36items that could be voting items are going to be tabled today to
  • 02:28:40await the accompanying NPRRs.
  • 02:28:46And then next slide please.
  • 02:28:51So we have some recent
  • 02:28:55ROS actions and then as you guys mentioned, PGRR107 that's
  • 02:28:59related to 1180 that IA is
  • 02:29:03coming back to us next Thursday on
  • 02:29:07the DWG procedure manual. I understand
  • 02:29:11that there were a couple of things that were missed and some language
  • 02:29:15that needed to be back in. So that's going to come back to us
  • 02:29:19next week and then next slide so
  • 02:29:26you can get flavor of sorry
  • 02:29:39Amazon guy at the exact wrong time. Okay, next slide.
  • 02:29:42Just more items that we are reviewing.
  • 02:29:47And then obviously our next meeting is November 7th
  • 02:29:52and if you have any questions, I'll take this.
  • 02:29:57Okay. Katie, did you want to add anything
  • 02:30:00on the 1247 discussion
  • 02:30:04as it's happening at PLWG and ROS?
  • 02:30:09Yes. So a couple things. If folks haven't looked at the Luminant
  • 02:30:13comments, I would encourage you to go back and look at those.
  • 02:30:16Those served as the starting point for the PLWG
  • 02:30:21changes that were included on top of those that will be
  • 02:30:26filed as a draft for ROS consideration.
  • 02:30:30I am working with PLWG leadership
  • 02:30:33to come up with an outline of that discussion so that we can lay everything
  • 02:30:37out and have it ready for folks to vote.
  • 02:30:40My understanding is that it will be the PLWG draft
  • 02:30:44and then there are some folks working with to try to
  • 02:30:47come up with some compromised language. If that doesn't
  • 02:30:51happen, then we would basically have the ERCOT
  • 02:30:54version of the comments and the PLWG draft version
  • 02:30:57of the comments up for about ROS.
  • 02:31:01Again, with us having that outline and understanding
  • 02:31:04the timing, we will do our very best to try to come to a
  • 02:31:08decision next week. So doing everything
  • 02:31:11we can to try to make that orderly.
  • 02:31:16Thanks, Kayte. And those draft PLWG comments,
  • 02:31:19those will be posted to the ROS meeting page?
  • 02:31:24Yes, so they'll be posted to the ROS meeting page along with the PLWG
  • 02:31:29update slides. Okay. And then if there was a
  • 02:31:32kind of compromise set of comments that would just be filed to the NPRR.
  • 02:31:39Okay. So we're looking in two different places, people.
  • 02:31:44So we did have the three voting items.
  • 02:31:48I think we could put those on the combo ballot as Katie suggested.
    PauseEditCreate clip
  • Clip 10.1 - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
    02:31:52 So we would be Looking to table PGRR116
  • 02:31:55awaiting NPRR1240.
  • Clip 10.2 - NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
    02:31:59 Tabled NOGRR266 awaiting NPRR1239
  • Clip 10.3 - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
    02:32:04and table NOGRR267 waiting NPRR1240.
  • 02:32:08Anybody have an issue with putting those on
  • 02:32:11the combo ballot?
  • 02:32:16All right. Okay. Let's take a
  • 02:32:19break until 12:20 and then
  • 02:32:23come back and take up the rest of our agenda.
  • 02:32:39Okay. It is one
  • 02:32:42after. Should we give people a couple more minutes or is everybody on?
  • 02:32:51Blakey, are you ready?
  • 02:32:55Let's do it. Okay, I put in
  • 02:32:59the chat some people. We are sending out the lunch list that
  • 02:33:03everybody order their own and pay for their own. But we have a
  • 02:33:06group order and Callie sends that out and she
  • 02:33:10sends it out to all members. But I think there's some people who are regular
  • 02:33:13attendees that might not be on the list. So send her an email.
  • 02:33:17Just another reminder that the next meeting is an 11am start.
  • 02:33:20So we'll order lunch to arrive a little bit on the
  • 02:33:24later side. All right. But we can pick back up for today
  • 02:33:28at agenda item.
  • 02:33:30Caitlin, if you want to take this opportunity to use
  • 02:33:34the phrase of the month, it's let's get this party started.
  • 02:33:39I think I love that.
  • 02:33:42Okay. I was waiting.
  • 02:33:46I was waiting for that. The phrase of the month is
  • 02:33:49let's get this party started. So, Blakey, are you ready to
  • 02:33:53get the party started? I thought it
  • 02:33:56had already started.
  • 02:33:59Okay, let's keep it going.
  • Clip 11 - WMS Report - Eric Blakey
    02:34:04 So it's Eric Blakey with part now co-op Chair of Wholesale
  • 02:34:08Market Subcommittee. Few items
  • 02:34:11I want to go through. We had an update from
  • 02:34:14Keith on the framework for evaluating market design design.
  • 02:34:18He's on the agenda later in the day, so I will not
  • 02:34:22spoil any of his comments, but he, he gave a. A very good
  • 02:34:26presentation and we had a really good dialogue with,
  • 02:34:29with Keith on his presentation. So I look forward to
  • 02:34:32that. Continue today, the update on
  • 02:34:36discussions on CRR auction.
  • 02:34:39We've discussed this previously due to a concern that the current allocation
  • 02:34:43of card may create perverse incentives for
  • 02:34:47Loads to over consume in certain hours to maximize congestion revenue.
  • 02:34:51We've had several proposals discussed at WMS and
  • 02:34:57it's my understanding that they have settled on a couple of different options.
  • 02:35:01These options will be presented to the next WMS and
  • 02:35:06we intend to have a vote on the direction that
  • 02:35:10ERCOT should pursue through an NPRR at our
  • 02:35:13December meeting, the update on
  • 02:35:17future large flexible load interconnection.
  • 02:35:21Those updates are now coming to TAC. I did want to mention that
  • 02:35:24Eric Goff, at our last meeting, he asked about
  • 02:35:28whether a working group should be assigned the task of developing an
  • 02:35:32NPRR that both memorializes the report in
  • 02:35:36the protocols and balances sharing as much data
  • 02:35:39as possible while still protecting customer confidentiality.
  • 02:35:43We agreed that I would raise that idea
  • 02:35:47to TAC. So that's what I'm doing today for any
  • 02:35:51input that TAC would like to provide.
  • 02:35:55Eric said that it would be up to WMS leadership,
  • 02:36:00but thought that memorializing the report and mandating
  • 02:36:04where the report should be presented are two different things
  • 02:36:08and that I would bring this forward.
  • 02:36:12So I wanted to do that. See if Eric wants to add anything to that
  • 02:36:15description and see if there's any feedback.
  • 02:36:22Go ahead, Eric. Yeah, I think that was pretty
  • 02:36:25clear. But just
  • 02:36:29as was illustrated by our last conversation, there's a lot of
  • 02:36:33attention on large loads and lots of
  • 02:36:37desire. I think we've heard it in 25 meetings in
  • 02:36:40the last three months to get more insight into the
  • 02:36:44large load queue. And as we all know,
  • 02:36:47customer information is protected and it's
  • 02:36:50owned by customers and protected by the
  • 02:36:54protocols. So we need some way of providing
  • 02:36:58insight into the protocols in the protocols or
  • 02:37:02in the planning guide to provide whatever
  • 02:37:06detail we can about what loads are coming in.
  • 02:37:11So that was the idea, just to try to formalize the
  • 02:37:14work that ERCOT is doing and provide additional detail if possible.
  • 02:37:20And I think it'd be a worthwhile discussion.
  • 02:37:34I see Ned has a question. I'll go ahead and take the
  • 02:37:38lead. Ned, do you have a question? Thanks, Eric.
  • 02:37:41And thank you, Eric. Yeah, so, Eric, I think.
  • 02:37:45Eric Goff, I think you hit the nail on the head. You know, the discussion
  • 02:37:48we just had was certainly indicative of interest
  • 02:37:52in continuing to flesh that out. So.
  • 02:37:55Or that topic out. So. And I also agree with you,
  • 02:37:59there does need to be a careful balance with customer privacy
  • 02:38:03issues. So I was just. I wanted to make sure
  • 02:38:06I had this clear from your layout, Eric Blakey.
  • 02:38:10The thought is there would be a task force that WMS
  • 02:38:14would create or one that would be
  • 02:38:17TAC reported task Force?
  • 02:38:21Yeah, I don't know that we got into that level of detail if
  • 02:38:25we were just starting off with a suggestion and then if it's something we want
  • 02:38:29to pursue, we can discuss where it ought to be.
  • 02:38:33Okay. In general, the concept
  • 02:38:37seems to make some sense, you know, to have
  • 02:38:40a continued forum, but certainly
  • 02:38:44open to hearing others thoughts.
  • 02:38:53Okay. Clayton Greer.
  • 02:38:56Yeah, I was wanting to ask a question of Eric on
  • 02:39:00what his specific ask is. Is it to try to get a LIS
  • 02:39:04similar to the gis? Yeah,
  • 02:39:08I don't think we can get the GIS specifically, you know,
  • 02:39:12but some sort of aggregated version of the interconnection
  • 02:39:17requests with as much specificity as possible while protecting customer
  • 02:39:21confidentiality. Do you have an idea of
  • 02:39:24what specifics you're looking for? Are you looking for like county level,
  • 02:39:28that location? I mean type information, or are
  • 02:39:31you looking for or part of the grid, you know, like 345 versus
  • 02:39:35138 connected. Yeah, types of loads.
  • 02:39:38Great, great question. I don't have specific answers to that,
  • 02:39:41unfortunately, because I think it depends on how low you can go
  • 02:39:45and still protect customer confidentiality. But the more
  • 02:39:49the better, I think for everybody. Right? Yeah,
  • 02:39:52I think that's a good idea. And then as far as the
  • 02:39:56I guess I missed meeting or two or three,
  • 02:40:00we're looking at moving the LFLTF under WMS or. What was that?
  • 02:40:07No, I'm sorry. The reporting that from
  • 02:40:11the updates to the. To the queue, I believe those had
  • 02:40:15been coming to WMS, but I believe at TAC, a meeting
  • 02:40:19or two ago, TAC decided those should go to TAC.
  • 02:40:23So. Okay. All right. Yeah, thank you.
  • 02:40:36Okay. Presby. Just wanted to express
  • 02:40:39support for what Eric said. I think that would be really helpful.
  • 02:40:43So thank you, Eric.
  • 02:40:52Okay,
  • 02:40:55so Eric. Both Eric's. It's a suggestion to
  • 02:40:59work on that idea at WMS or do you need feedback from TAC?
  • 02:41:04It seems like you have support.
  • 02:41:07Yeah, I feel like I'm hearing support for
  • 02:41:10that discussion. And so we
  • 02:41:14will try to frame that and make a proposal
  • 02:41:19if we can at our next WMS.
  • 02:41:24Unless someone has a other thought. Okay,
  • 02:41:29sounds good. Okay, thank you. The last item is to.
  • 02:41:33On our open action item list. Just wanted
  • 02:41:37to make folks aware we're trying to proactively clean up our.
  • 02:41:41Our various items are open
  • 02:41:45action item and parking lot issues. We just have one TAC
  • 02:41:48assignment, one open action item. We have five parking lot
  • 02:41:52items. All of these were assigned to either WMWG or cmwg.
  • 02:41:56I know that those working
  • 02:42:00groups are looking at these Very closely. And at
  • 02:42:04our next WMS or soon thereafter, we're just wanting
  • 02:42:08folks to know that if any of these items are near
  • 02:42:11and dear to their heart, we need to know because some of these items are
  • 02:42:14pretty old and have probably been taken care of in other ways already.
  • 02:42:18So we're just trying to keep some
  • 02:42:22efficiency. And you know,
  • 02:42:25my proposal has been just to get rid of the parking lot, but I know
  • 02:42:28others feel strongly that we need it.
  • 02:42:31It's just we have not actually utilize the parking lot since I've
  • 02:42:34been chair. So I want to be sure that we're being as
  • 02:42:38efficient as possible.
  • 02:42:42Next slide. Okay. On the parking lot items,
  • 02:42:46do you want that feedback at your next
  • 02:42:49WMS meeting? Yes,
  • 02:42:53speak there or you know,
  • 02:42:56yeah, go ahead, speak there or,
  • 02:42:59or at the WMWG and CMWG when they, when they're cleaning up the
  • 02:43:03list. That'd also be a good opportunity to try
  • 02:43:07to get these cleaned up the best way possible.
  • 02:43:14Next item. We had two new NPRRs. Both of these
  • 02:43:18were tabled. NPRR1250 RPS mandatory program
  • 02:43:22termination was tabled for discussion at WMS and
  • 02:43:26NPRR1251 updated FFSS fuel replacement
  • 02:43:29cost recovery was tabled and referred to WMWG.
  • 02:43:35This is our ongoing list of remain table items.
  • 02:43:38The one I want to highlight is 1235.
  • 02:43:42We had this one assigned to both WMWG and
  • 02:43:46SAWG and we have now consolidated that discussion at SAWG.
  • 02:43:51I do want to just provide an update. SAWG had a
  • 02:43:54meeting last week and had a really good, you know, robust discussion
  • 02:43:59about the proposal. They have not yet reported
  • 02:44:03to WMS. So I want to, I don't want to
  • 02:44:06get too deep into what they said or try
  • 02:44:10to characterize the conversation, but just wanted to
  • 02:44:13keep this on the, on the list of TAC members
  • 02:44:17just to be aware of this one,
  • 02:44:20that there is some discussions
  • 02:44:24going on as to path forward. There's really not been a good consensus
  • 02:44:30whether this is operational only or a resource adequacy tool.
  • 02:44:34And then I know last week the IMM provided
  • 02:44:38some comments and opinions that WMWG
  • 02:44:42is, is looking into. And so these discussions are
  • 02:44:45going on. But as chair
  • 02:44:49of WMS, I'm just wanting to be sure that we're not
  • 02:44:53missing any expectations given that this came
  • 02:44:56out of legislation. You know, just as a history. This was
  • 02:45:00the one that ERCOT originally filed as part of NPRR1203
  • 02:45:05as a subcategory of, of non
  • 02:45:09spin and then receive some direction from the TUC
  • 02:45:14to make a standalone product. So that's what they proposed in
  • 02:45:17this NPRR1235.
  • 02:45:21And so, you know, we are definitely working on getting this
  • 02:45:25move forward. There's been a lot of good discussion.
  • 02:45:30And again, like any of these, we'll be happy to take feedback
  • 02:45:34and direction from TAC or PUC or any.
  • 02:45:38Anyone that would like to help us get this moving forward.
  • 02:45:46Okay, thanks, Eric. I see a comment from Ned.
  • 02:45:51Hey, Eric, I just wanted to say thank you for having
  • 02:45:56the space to have that discussion at sawg.
  • 02:46:00I realize that not everyone is of the same opinion, as you've
  • 02:46:03noted, and that's what the stakeholder process
  • 02:46:07is there to help flesh out. And I'm
  • 02:46:10hopeful that the discussion
  • 02:46:14that the commission has teed up in the draft
  • 02:46:19ancillary services study report may also be a path to
  • 02:46:22help provide some guidance. But certainly I agree
  • 02:46:26with you. We welcome feedback and
  • 02:46:29direction on that as well. But in
  • 02:46:33the meantime, we think it is an important topic to
  • 02:46:36raise. And as you noted, it is a statutory requirement.
  • 02:46:39And frankly, that is what Lumen
  • 02:46:43was hoping to make sure was reflected in
  • 02:46:47the NPRR.
  • 02:46:52Thank you, Ned.
  • 02:46:55Okay, so that is consolidated at
  • 02:46:59sawg, so no longer at wmwg,
  • 02:47:03correct? That's correct. Okay.
  • 02:47:06And then as Ned noted, discussions in the answer
  • 02:47:10service study adopted at the puc.
  • 02:47:16I promise I won't call on you this much next time. Bark Sale, but it's
  • 02:47:19the staff. Want to weigh in on anything here as well?
  • 02:47:25No, I think. I think the agenda that we
  • 02:47:29filed yesterday, was it yesterday with the questions.
  • 02:47:32Maybe it was Monday speak
  • 02:47:37for themselves. Okay. Happy to answer
  • 02:47:40specific questions if you want. All right,
  • 02:47:44I don't see any. Eric Blakey,
  • 02:47:48I think I cut you off. Go ahead. No, if there's
  • 02:47:52no other questions, our next meeting is
  • 02:47:56next Wednesday the 6th. Thank you,
  • 02:47:59Katie, for correcting my reference. 1251 is
  • 02:48:03@RCWG. If you have no other questions,
  • 02:48:07that's my report. Thank you. Hey, I don't see any. All right,
  • 02:48:10thank you, Eric. Next is
  • 02:48:14the credit finance subgroup.
  • 02:48:17And we do have a voting item on membership
  • 02:48:21here. Yes. Hey, Brendan here.
  • 02:48:25Can everybody hear me?
  • 02:48:30Oh, hello. Yep, we can hear you. Yes, we hear
  • 02:48:34you. Yes, sorry. Okay,
  • Clip 12 - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager
    02:48:37great. Thanks. Hey. This is from our October 23rd meeting.
  • 02:48:41We looked at NPRR. We're continuing to
  • 02:48:45discuss the changes to estimate aggregate liability,
  • 02:48:49which comprises the collateral commitment to ERCOT system
  • 02:48:53and reporting enhancements and the regular credit updates.
  • 02:48:57Next slide, please.
  • 02:49:02In December 2024,
  • 02:49:05ERCOT will implement the system changes as a result of NPRR1184,
  • 02:49:10which has to do with the management of interest received by ERCOT.
  • 02:49:13There will be some language Unboxed
  • 02:49:17in the NPRRs market participants will have
  • 02:49:21access to reports on collateral history and interest,
  • 02:49:24annual and monthly. They're going to
  • 02:49:27implement an automated notification system for letters
  • 02:49:32of credit and surety bond related matters, you know,
  • 02:49:36amendments, terminations, et cetera. And some of this
  • 02:49:40material will be appearing on the ACL reports.
  • 02:49:44Next slide please.
  • 02:49:47So this is what I've been, we've been talking about for a while and I've
  • 02:49:50been presenting on for a while ERCOT has reached,
  • 02:49:53they looked at various scenarios I want to say like 7 or 8 for the
  • 02:49:57estimate of aggregate liability. So this is sort
  • 02:50:01of the fundamental calculation that comes up with what you
  • 02:50:04have to post to ERCOT. Excuse me.
  • 02:50:09So the current, we'll go through the current process and
  • 02:50:14then what's going to be changed. But they are looking for
  • 02:50:17us to vote on the CFSG to vote
  • 02:50:22in support of you know, this kind of broad
  • 02:50:26framework. It's not going to be all resolved I
  • 02:50:29don't think but we're probably about 90% there and then even
  • 02:50:34if we get there through TAC and through any other approval
  • 02:50:38process it would, it's going to be a pretty big lift. So it
  • 02:50:41would probably pretty long outlook for implementation but so
  • 02:50:45let's go through. So what we're looking at now is
  • 02:50:49the first component is the RFAF and the RF is
  • 02:50:52a ratio of futures prices to settlement prices.
  • 02:50:57Three weeks of futures to two weeks of settles that multiplies
  • 02:51:01times the extrapolated historical
  • 02:51:04real time market. 14 day average statements over
  • 02:51:08a look back period. So basically your
  • 02:51:11you know your real time is averaged
  • 02:51:14over 40 days and that and the
  • 02:51:18max value of that is applied against the RF.
  • 02:51:22So you know if it's $100 the ratio is
  • 02:51:2710, then it's a thousand dollars. If it's the ratio to the
  • 02:51:30Fords to the settles is one, it's you know, $100.
  • 02:51:34Second the day ahead Ford adjustment factors multiplied by the day ahead liability.
  • 02:51:38That's the item highlighted in red that is going away.
  • 02:51:43I think that's Eric
  • 02:51:49last step for ERCOT to give it. Yes. Oh,
  • 02:51:52ERCOT's going to present at the November meeting. I believe
  • 02:51:56so I think they were looking to you know
  • 02:52:00get, get our support and then present to TAC.
  • 02:52:05All right Austin, did you want to share something?
  • 02:52:09Well Eric said after your update I'm fine to wait if we might
  • 02:52:13want to. That spurs more conversation but I
  • 02:52:18guess I got the microphone now so I'll talk if you're okay Brendan and
  • 02:52:22I don't know if Sanchez on Eric, we haven't forgotten about your
  • 02:52:26request. There's been
  • 02:52:29a lot of work going on at CFSG and I don't think everybody's been able
  • 02:52:32to track everything that's going on because
  • 02:52:36they've been running a ton of scenarios and having lots
  • 02:52:39of discussion on some very detailed features
  • 02:52:44of these equations. So in
  • 02:52:48my opinion, the CFSG is kind of coalescing
  • 02:52:52around an idea,
  • 02:52:56a proposal for changes to
  • 02:53:00these exposure calculations to
  • 02:53:04confirm that. I think they're going to vote on it next month.
  • 02:53:08Like I said, not everybody's been able to track these conversations down
  • 02:53:12to the nitty gritty detail. I think once CFSG
  • 02:53:16is happy, I think there needs to be an expanded conversation
  • 02:53:19within ERCOT also with upper management and
  • 02:53:23thinking about maybe some things that just
  • 02:53:27make sure everybody's comfortable with these ideas before we totally
  • 02:53:32commit ourselves to wanting to implement these, implement this
  • 02:53:35change if we do get
  • 02:53:39comfortable with it. I definitely like your idea of coming to TAC and presenting
  • 02:53:43high level and maybe having a conversation,
  • 02:53:47a higher level conversation with people that may not be so involved so that everybody's
  • 02:53:50comfortable. Sure. So that's where we're at. So we're
  • 02:53:54not. What I'm saying is we're not 100% there yet
  • 02:53:58internally as well. So we're not going to come out guns blazing with an
  • 02:54:01NPRR asking for a vote. Yeah, and that's
  • 02:54:05not what I'm asking for exactly, but it's, it's close.
  • 02:54:09So I appreciate the conversation and I
  • 02:54:13didn't mean to interrupt your flow, Brennan, but I
  • 02:54:18think it would be helpful for a presentation to TAC this topic before
  • 02:54:22ERCOT gets to 100% alignment to talk
  • 02:54:25through what are the principles behind these changes that are proposed
  • 02:54:29and how are we
  • 02:54:33going to apply those principles with this change.
  • 02:54:37Also, will these changes
  • 02:54:41be something that will help reduce the risks that we
  • 02:54:45experienced in Winter Storm uri? And if so, exactly how
  • 02:54:50so? I don't know that.
  • 02:54:55I think that we need to get to that level of conversation before we get
  • 02:54:58into specific changes to the formula. I have been to these meetings before.
  • 02:55:02I understand we all like to dive into the formulas, but I really like to
  • 02:55:05take it up a higher level to the policy
  • 02:55:09discussion of what we're trying to accomplish with this change and why,
  • 02:55:13and then make sure that we're meeting those objectives and
  • 02:55:17reducing the risks that we all experienced in the past. I think this
  • 02:55:21is a good direction. You know, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to derail
  • 02:55:24anything, but I think it's important that we really drive
  • 02:55:29the why forward first.
  • 02:55:34Okay. All right. I see Seth
  • 02:55:38is in the queue. Did you want to comment now or.
  • 02:55:41Yeah, for sure, go ahead. Yeah,
  • 02:55:44you know, I was in some of the nascent developments of this initiative and
  • 02:55:47this review. So was shams. The why was discussed at that
  • 02:55:51point and it was discussed ad nauseam. I'm sorry if you missed it,
  • 02:55:54but there was a lot of presentations on why this is an issue and
  • 02:55:58exactly what the issue was in very quantified detail.
  • 02:56:01I didn't miss it. I think it's,
  • 02:56:05you know, if we're going to make a major change to how we're
  • 02:56:10doing credit, not a bad thing. I want to be clear. I just
  • 02:56:13think that TAC needs to understand what it is that we're
  • 02:56:17doing and how it fits in the broader goals
  • 02:56:20of reducing the overall risk that we have in the
  • 02:56:24market that we've continued to have and as you know,
  • 02:56:27haven't really addressed since the winter storm.
  • 02:56:32Yeah, and I think I've been asked ERCOT
  • 02:56:36to present to this group and I think they're willing to do that,
  • 02:56:39but they just were on a path of analysis. They wanted to get
  • 02:56:43through our group first and then, you know, move up to leadership and everybody
  • 02:56:46else. I mean it will, it's a, it's, it takes the existing
  • 02:56:50framework and tweaks it. So I mean it's not a, like a
  • 02:56:54massive change. But anyway, so, yeah,
  • 02:56:57so yeah, I was just talking about the DFAF and the day
  • 02:57:01ahead average liability being a separate component and that that's
  • 02:57:05going to be netted, which I will explain in a minute. The third component is
  • 02:57:08the completed not settled charges. Comparing real time estimates
  • 02:57:12versus the highest extrapolated historical real
  • 02:57:16time 14 day average statements over the look back period. Fourth is
  • 02:57:20the out which looks at outstanding invoices,
  • 02:57:24unbilled day ahead market amounts, finals, true UPS and card.
  • 02:57:27And then the last element is load exposure
  • 02:57:31to provider of last resort resorts for mass transmission. So these
  • 02:57:34are the five separate elements of the current
  • 02:57:38EAL calculation. Next slide please.
  • 02:57:43Okay, so here's the framework that ERCOT
  • 02:57:47has come up with. ERCOT, the credit team, that is
  • 02:57:50Sanchez team.
  • 02:57:54So in the blue we have this notion of NLE
  • 02:57:59the net liability extrapolated and that incorporates
  • 02:58:03the last 14 days real time initial settlement
  • 02:58:07average plus the last 14 days day ahead
  • 02:58:11initial settlement averages times M1, which is a day count
  • 02:58:15depending on your activity. So the, so there, the key change here
  • 02:58:19is the netting of the real time and day ahead which was separate or
  • 02:58:23is separate in the current form
  • 02:58:27the next term is the max of the real time completed not settled plus
  • 02:58:32unbilled day ahead of outs versus the max of unbilled
  • 02:58:37liability extrapolated based on 14 days of day ahead and real time
  • 02:58:40initial statements. And then the final terms are the out
  • 02:58:43and the ILE that I described before. So the there are,
  • 02:58:47we have the forward adjustment factors and incorporated in this,
  • 02:58:51the RF is what it is now, 21 day futures
  • 02:58:55over 14 days real time prices,
  • 02:59:00but it is bracketed at a minimum of 0.05 to
  • 02:59:04a max of 1.5. Now I think during Yuri I
  • 02:59:07think this went up like certainly over 10 and I think
  • 02:59:11maybe over 20. So that, you know,
  • 02:59:15bracketing that takes out a significant amount of
  • 02:59:19volatility and then that is evaluated against
  • 02:59:22this new forward adjustment factor
  • 02:59:26of 21 days futures versus the most recent seven
  • 02:59:30days. So they shortened the denominator
  • 02:59:34a little bit just because again as those, as those
  • 02:59:38high settlement prices kind of rolled into the equation,
  • 02:59:42you know, you have a larger denominator then you get a amount
  • 02:59:45less than 1 which haircuts the invoice exposure.
  • 02:59:49So 1, it'll be a little bit more responsive in terms
  • 02:59:53of shortening that settlement day window. And two, they're setting a
  • 02:59:56floor of one so you won't be haircutting your invoice
  • 02:59:59exposure. Now keep in mind that was partially, that was by design
  • 03:00:03because given the historical look back, they intended to
  • 03:00:07haircut that those elevated,
  • 03:00:11you know, those elevated historic invoices.
  • 03:00:15So you know, we're looking at that.
  • 03:00:19So next slide please.
  • 03:00:23Okay, so what does this mean to me? I think the
  • 03:00:28overall goal here was most importantly
  • 03:00:32not to create more shortages, relative collateral
  • 03:00:36shortages relative to invoice exposure. That was the
  • 03:00:39first priority. So in all their scenarios, they look carefully at that problem to
  • 03:00:42make sure that the market was not under collateralized. Then we're looking
  • 03:00:46at these instances of over collateralization which
  • 03:00:51are somewhat an artifact of the way
  • 03:00:54these forward adjustment factors just
  • 03:00:58roll out through time. So they notice this double top issue when
  • 03:01:01you have a series of a lot of volatility in the market,
  • 03:01:05like as in Yuri and a few of the other storms,
  • 03:01:10the high prices come on, your invoice exposure is
  • 03:01:15doubled, tripled, whatever, and then
  • 03:01:19it works through and then there's some tailing
  • 03:01:23volatility in the market. But it's not necessarily as volatile
  • 03:01:27as the initial event, the actual event
  • 03:01:31driven one. But because you have those settlement prices going
  • 03:01:34in, it creates a lot of volatility. And over
  • 03:01:38collateralization, that doesn't necessarily follow invoice exposure.
  • 03:01:42So that's kind of the main benefit of
  • 03:01:46this plan. So just trying to get rid
  • 03:01:49of these double tops, and these can be tens of millions of dollars
  • 03:01:54and ERCOT will, if you'd like, the credit group will go
  • 03:01:58through your firm's, you know, your firm's collateral
  • 03:02:01history and TPE and all that with you.
  • 03:02:06So yeah, looking at the double top, the TPA
  • 03:02:10under the proposed framework going into high volatility could result in a higher cushion
  • 03:02:14as opposed to the existing formula. Also, due to netting activity
  • 03:02:18real time against day ahead and applying the FAFF against the most recent activity,
  • 03:02:22there's an increased sensitivity of the tpea.
  • 03:02:26And then after the event passes,
  • 03:02:29it addresses the double top issue. So next slide
  • 03:02:33please. So this is
  • 03:02:37ERCOT's conclusions, the problem
  • 03:02:40they're trying to solve. After making sure that
  • 03:02:44the primary goal was to make sure that the market has sufficient
  • 03:02:47collateral as a secondary,
  • 03:02:51we wanted to optimize these double tops.
  • 03:02:55So this was brought up by a number of market participants.
  • 03:02:58The concern was that the current framework leads to unreasonably
  • 03:03:02high collateralization, large positive gaps or over collateralization,
  • 03:03:05especially when volatility of the event is followed up by another price surge.
  • 03:03:10Under certain theoretical scenario, the extent of the collateral calls could be endangering
  • 03:03:14the stability of the market and lead to a cascade of defaults due to inability
  • 03:03:18to meet collateral calls. This could be especially aggravating and
  • 03:03:21unnecessary when the underlying credit exposures haven't changed much
  • 03:03:25in the TPEA is driven by the mechanics of
  • 03:03:28the formula. So the concern about higher volatility
  • 03:03:32in TPA relative to underlying credit exposure and about
  • 03:03:36overall over collateralization in the cost of the market.
  • 03:03:41So they looked at the impact of the proposed framework.
  • 03:03:45It will address the primarily the double top issue.
  • 03:03:49It will reduce volatility overall, particularly in those times
  • 03:03:53when, you know, it's the worst around stuff like URI and
  • 03:03:57other storms. The reduction will
  • 03:04:01be achieved without increasing risk and we
  • 03:04:04expect the overall reduction in instances in the extent of under
  • 03:04:08collateralization. The exact impact will depend on each counterparty
  • 03:04:12behavior in the marketplace and so on. And it will
  • 03:04:15reduce overall collateral cost to the marketplace. They looked
  • 03:04:19at disadvantages that in certain circumstances it could lead to an
  • 03:04:23increase in instances and an extent of under collateralization.
  • 03:04:29So but there are ways to prevent this by, you know, removing the caps
  • 03:04:33or brackets around the real time forward adjustment factors.
  • 03:04:37But when you do that, you run into the higher
  • 03:04:41positive gaps or over collateralization.
  • 03:04:45Next slide please.
  • 03:04:48So this is just our, the NPRRs we looked at as operational,
  • 03:04:54the energy storage resource terminology alignment for single
  • 03:04:57model era and the modeling deadline for initial
  • 03:05:01submission of resource registration data. Next slide please.
  • 03:05:07And here's the regular highlights. Market wide TPE
  • 03:05:11decreased from 1.88 billion to 1.72
  • 03:05:15from August to September. Decreased both to lower
  • 03:05:18real time day ahead prices and forward adjustment factors.
  • 03:05:23The discretionary collateral decrease from 4 to
  • 03:05:273.92 billion. There were no unusual calls.
  • 03:05:30Next slide please.
  • 03:05:35And you can see the tpe, the collateral,
  • 03:05:39the credit exposure relative to
  • 03:05:43the collateral posted to the market. You know it's going down. We're getting
  • 03:05:47out of the hot season, so this is all normal and
  • 03:05:50fine. Next slide please.
  • 03:05:58This is just looking at the discretionary collateral
  • 03:06:02from August to September. Nothing unusual here. You need
  • 03:06:05that extra collateral to access the day ahead market,
  • 03:06:09so that's why it's above the obligation.
  • 03:06:12Next slide please.
  • 03:06:16And ERCOT increased the LC limits.
  • 03:06:20So you know, there again this is a slide to tell you everything's in
  • 03:06:24pretty good shape. Lloyd's is getting close,
  • 03:06:26but there's plenty of room elsewhere. Next slide please.
  • 03:06:31And that's it.
  • 03:06:39Thank you, Brendan. I'm going to jump in for Caitlin here. She's got
  • 03:06:43to take care of something real quick.
  • 03:06:46Any other comments, questions for Brendan from a credit finance subgr subgroup?
  • Clip 12.1 - Approval of CFSG Membership
    03:06:53 I think we do have one item that we need to. We've got a new
  • 03:06:57member to the credit finance subgroup that will need to be approved
  • 03:07:00by TAC. That's Brian Kozlowski.
  • 03:07:04Any concerns from folks to add that to the combo ballot?
  • 03:07:14Thank you, Richard. Thanks.
  • 03:07:19Thanks, Brendan. Corey, if we can go ahead and add that to the combo ballot,
  • 03:07:21that'd be great. And we will move on to
  • 03:07:25item number 13 with the RTC+B Task Force report.
  • 03:07:29Matt, are you with us?
  • 03:07:35Actually, this is Keith. Matt is. He's actually
  • 03:07:40going to be here in a few minutes. So if we want to skip ahead,
  • 03:07:43that might, might be better. He'll be here, I think
  • 03:07:47around probably about five, five, 10 minutes. But if we can
  • 03:07:50do someone else, that'd be better.
  • 03:07:53Let's skip items 13 and 14. I'm gonna wait till Caitlin gets back
  • 03:07:57to. For number 14. So we'll go to ERCOT reports item number
  • Clip 15 - ERCOT Reports
    03:08:0015. Let's start with the AEP Brownsville
  • 03:08:04Area Improvements transmission project with Prabhu.
  • 03:08:14Hey, good afternoon. Can you hear me? Loud and clear.
  • 03:08:18Okay. I'll wait for the presentation to show up.
  • 03:08:21Okay.
  • 03:08:25And there we have. Okay. Yeah,
  • Clip 15.1 - AEPSC Brownsville Area Improvements Transmission Project - Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam
    03:08:29 Good morning. This is to get the AEP
  • 03:08:34project, RPG project, the Brownfield Area Improvement Project
  • 03:08:38for Your consideration and recommendations to the Board.
  • 03:08:42This is a Tier 1 project with an
  • 03:08:45estimated cost of $387 million.
  • 03:08:49This project will require CCN. The need is
  • 03:08:53primarily to address both the steady state thermal and
  • 03:08:56voltage issues in the Brownsville area in the Cameron County.
  • 03:09:01This highlights the area of the study area here.
  • 03:09:05Next slide please.
  • 03:09:10Again, this is the Tier 1 project requirement.
  • 03:09:13This falls under Tier 1 category
  • 03:09:17which is estimated of $100
  • 03:09:21million or more and the requirement for CCN.
  • 03:09:25And as highlighted in the protocol. Any comments from TAC shall be
  • 03:09:29included in the presentation to the board when we seek
  • 03:09:32the approval for this project. Next slide please.
  • 03:09:40So the need need is primarily driven by steady state
  • 03:09:43issues which was verified by,
  • 03:09:47you know, performing the steady state study looking
  • 03:09:51at the planning criteria violations and the table highlights
  • 03:09:55some of the issues we have seen that's driving the need for this project.
  • 03:09:59We saw almost close to 100 miles
  • 03:10:03of 138kV line overloads and some
  • 03:10:06voltage issues and also overloads on existing transformers
  • 03:10:10under various conditions P1 to P7s and looking at
  • 03:10:14G minus 1 plus N minus 1 and X minus
  • 03:10:18plus N minus 1.
  • 03:10:22Next slide please.
  • 03:10:29In order to address the reliability issues,
  • 03:10:33we looked at several options. We looked at a total of eight
  • 03:10:36different alternatives or options to address this thermal
  • 03:10:40and voltage issues. Among those we
  • 03:10:44shortlisted four options that was presented at various
  • 03:10:47times at the RPG. We provided regular updates and based
  • 03:10:51on those analysis, option two was
  • 03:10:56identified as the option that was the least cost option
  • 03:11:00and also addresses some of the operational concerns
  • 03:11:03and the long term road serving capability for this area.
  • 03:11:07So the table here shows the comparison of the four options for shortly shortlisted
  • 03:11:12options. And you could see option two
  • 03:11:16would require 26 miles of new right away
  • 03:11:20and with an estimated cost of $423 million.
  • 03:11:26Next slide please.
  • 03:11:31Again, pursuant to the protocols we are required
  • 03:11:34to look at SSR screening anytime we add new lines
  • 03:11:38and we performed the analysis and concluded that
  • 03:11:42there was no adverse SSR impacts due
  • 03:11:46to either existing or the plant generation resources in the area.
  • 03:11:52Next slide please.
  • 03:11:56In addition to that there is also requirement to perform sensitivities
  • 03:12:01looking at sensitivities for both generation
  • 03:12:05and load scaling and also perform a congestion analysis.
  • 03:12:09So we performed the congestion analysis and we did
  • 03:12:13identify some issues. But when we tested
  • 03:12:16those upgrades it did not meet the economic criteria.
  • 03:12:20So there was no additional upgrades recommended as part of
  • 03:12:23this economic analysis. And the conclusion from
  • 03:12:27both the generated scaling and the load scaling is we did not find any impact
  • 03:12:31particularly with this addition of this new project.
  • 03:12:37Next slide please.
  • 03:12:43So the recommendation for ERCOT is
  • 03:12:47to request. We will request the board to endorse option two
  • 03:12:51to address the reliability need in the Brownsville area.
  • 03:12:54And this the TSP
  • 03:12:57is expected to implement this project by May of 2029 and
  • 03:13:01the estimated cost is $423.8 million.
  • 03:13:07Next slide please.
  • 03:13:13So this is the project description at a high level.
  • 03:13:17The project adds and adds a new station shall by plant
  • 03:13:21station to the existing
  • 03:13:24138 and one of the we One of
  • 03:13:28the major parts of the project is to build this line 3
  • 03:13:33double circuit 345kV line from Shelby
  • 03:13:37to Palmito and Kingfisher. This is. This line
  • 03:13:40is estimated to require
  • 03:13:44approximately 24 miles of CCN. In addition to that
  • 03:13:48there is a CCN requirement to build a
  • 03:13:51new 2 mile 138kV section from Shallowby to Stillman.
  • 03:13:55And the remaining upgrades are. The four lines listed are rebuilds of
  • 03:13:58existing 138kV that would not require CCN.
  • 03:14:03In addition to that we are also seeing a need to add
  • 03:14:07reactive device in the station and we are proposing
  • 03:14:12150 megawatts plus or minus statcom at the Xiaomi
  • 03:14:16138kV station.
  • 03:14:20Next slide please. The next slide probably shows the map of
  • 03:14:24the area with this proposed upgrades. For your
  • 03:14:28reference you could see the highlighted ones or the 138kV
  • 03:14:32upgrades. And the dotted line in green is the new 345kV line.
  • 03:14:38I think that's the last slide. I will pause here to see if
  • 03:14:41there are any questions.
  • 03:14:45Okay, I don't see any questions.
  • 03:14:49So we are looking to endorse
  • 03:14:53the AP Brownsville Area Improvement Transmission
  • 03:14:58Project Option 2A. Can we
  • 03:15:01put this on the combo ballot?
  • 03:15:07Okay, I think so. Thank you.
  • 03:15:10Thanks. All right, we have Matt
  • 03:15:14now for the RTC.
  • 03:15:18Thanks for. Yeah, thank you, Caitlin. If you're
  • 03:15:21willing to take me, I'd be happy to do so now. Yep.
  • 03:15:25Please go ahead. All right,
  • 03:15:28so slide one. So I'm out of sync
  • 03:15:32with what's on the screen right now. There it
  • Clip 13 - RTC+B Task Force Report - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness
    03:15:35is. Okay, so I wanted to review what is the
  • 03:15:39purpose of the task force, what it does do and what it doesn't do.
  • 03:15:42Then I'll go through the usual what are the current issues that we're working through
  • 03:15:46and then we're going to slow down a little bit to talk about the TAC
  • 03:15:48approved parameters that we had flagged. That we have a
  • 03:15:51slightly different direction to head. And then the last piece,
  • 03:15:55what I really need to leave with today is the endorsement of the Market
  • 03:15:58trials plan. So I'll unpack each of these as we walk through over the next
  • 03:16:0210 minutes. Next slide.
  • 03:16:06All right, so I highlighted in red. So we had as a task force a
  • 03:16:10charter. And the charter is coordinating timelines
  • 03:16:14and activities and NPRRs. And the objective
  • 03:16:18of what we're here today for the approval is coordinating market readiness and
  • 03:16:22cutover activities. Because these are essentially throwaway
  • 03:16:27artifacts. The idea is for as a task force we'll
  • 03:16:30develop what's needed for readiness and transition and
  • 03:16:34then what we need also down at the bottom is consensus on those
  • 03:16:39and then escalate to TAC for a vote to decide the matter.
  • 03:16:42They were not here TAC because there's any kind of contention.
  • 03:16:46It's just to essentially memorialize and sign off on ERCOT.
  • 03:16:50And the market has discussed in detail what market trials look like and
  • 03:16:54believe that this is the right way to engage in 2025
  • 03:16:57to make a successful transition. So that's just set the stage for why
  • 03:17:00we're taking an endorsement TAC today on this particular
  • 03:17:04artifact. And I'll come back to that at the end. Next one.
  • 03:17:12In terms of the sequence, this is the progression that you've seen. I don't think
  • 03:17:16anything has changed from last TAC, except maybe we had announced a go live
  • 03:17:20date of December 5, 2025. And so
  • 03:17:23each of those market trial sequences now has a start date. So you can
  • 03:17:27see that May 5th is when we'll start to that's the next engagement where we'll
  • 03:17:31have scorecards up for all the 105queasies of.
  • 03:17:34Are you getting your submissions in? Are you participating in the open loop SCED?
  • 03:17:38How's the closed loop LST test doing? So again, this is that progression
  • 03:17:42over time. And for each of these boxes except for the
  • 03:17:45transition piece, there is a market trials plan in
  • 03:17:49place that I'm going to ask for a vote on later today where each of
  • 03:17:52these boxes has an entry criteria and an exit criteria and
  • 03:17:56all the activities that happen in between. Next slide,
  • 03:18:00I'm going to go fairly quickly because I think most everyone has seen these and
  • 03:18:04again we talked about at the last TAC meeting is we have shuffled the RT
  • 03:18:08issues list into a top half is more for
  • 03:18:12policy driven decisions that still need to be made, whether it's
  • 03:18:16AS proxy offer floors or state of charge
  • 03:18:20parameters in RTC and the RTC simulator that
  • 03:18:24may drive discussion on, you know, the AS
  • 03:18:28demand curves and such. And so we're working through kind of these policies
  • 03:18:32decision in parallel to what's it look like in terms of market
  • 03:18:35readiness for those blue and green areas to start to light up.
  • 03:18:39And so one of the things that we're asking for today is to,
  • 03:18:43you know that blue one down in the middle there that says release and review
  • 03:18:47a market trials plan. So our goal was to have that out of
  • 03:18:50here and that will then set the stage for us to develop the handbooks that
  • 03:18:54will accommodate each of those pieces with more details. It's hard to represent in
  • 03:18:58eight pages what six months of market trials look
  • 03:19:01like for 105 companies. So we need. This is kind of a rendezvous
  • 03:19:05point to say this is enough information to now to go forward
  • 03:19:08and work through all the details. And so the next slide
  • 03:19:12will talk about what are the key issues in flight right now.
  • 03:19:18So we did talk about scaling factors for ramp sharing. That's the
  • 03:19:21idea of how will SCED for RTC share
  • 03:19:25ancillary service and energy ramps for
  • 03:19:28resources and such. As the first round, we have three rounds for each of
  • 03:19:32these. The next one was the clarifying revision request. So thank you
  • 03:19:35for approval of 1245. Today 1246 will be coming
  • 03:19:39on behind. ERCOT will be submitting comments for the
  • 03:19:43task force to say that we have reviewed NOGRR268,
  • 03:19:45118 and OBDRR052. Those are supporting
  • 03:19:50battery energy storage details. Essentially the ripple effect of new
  • 03:19:54terminology through everything else. But the review of the task
  • 03:19:57force is done so we'll file comments to that effect that then signal that everyone
  • 03:20:01else can button that up and move it forward as they feel comfortable.
  • 03:20:04We do need those approved before go live though. The next
  • 03:20:07one is the market trials plan review. Again, that's where we've had four
  • 03:20:11reviews of that. So now we'd like to endorse them today. The next thing
  • 03:20:14is an approach to training readiness. We have started reporting
  • 03:20:19some training so that we. It's not training,
  • 03:20:22it's. It's just in time. PowerPoint presentations,
  • 03:20:26for example. Maggie Shanks from our settlements team
  • 03:20:30did a 45 minute walkthrough on all the new and modified billing determinants
  • 03:20:34for rtz. She has then stepped into a recording
  • 03:20:38studio, recorded that. So we have slides and her voice
  • 03:20:42together to be a 45 minute video that can be watched.
  • 03:20:46It's not there yet, but we have the ability to upload it and it will
  • 03:20:49be a self serve training. And we have kind of a,
  • 03:20:53an outline of all those different content pieces out at
  • 03:20:56the task force to see which ones are the next most important one to focus
  • 03:20:59on. We're hearing loud and clear that the next thing is
  • 03:21:03to get kind of this what's changed between now and RTC.
  • 03:21:06Kind of a 20 to 30 minute walkthrough from Dave Maggio to explain what's
  • 03:21:11changing with RTC and also what's not changing. So that
  • 03:21:14way people can start to get understood on how these things are working.
  • 03:21:19The next one is the review of the parameters for the AS proxy offer curves.
  • 03:21:22Again, that's the idea of if it's an incomplete curve
  • 03:21:25or a blank, how does ERCOT fill it in just like we do energy offer
  • 03:21:29curves today. Instead, if the ancillary services don't have a price
  • 03:21:33quantity pair, what does it look like? And so there's more
  • 03:21:36discussion to come in that we did bring forward number eight there, the simulator
  • 03:21:41update. This is we took a three operating days
  • 03:21:45and ran through an RTC simulator that we have in house.
  • 03:21:49We load all the save cases up for SCED into RTC
  • 03:21:52and then we ran price again congestion analysis and shared that with the
  • 03:21:56task force. It's kind of a what if this was in place so you can
  • 03:21:59go look at those results if you want to. And then the last piece is
  • 03:22:03the IMM did share briefly that they are making some progress
  • 03:22:06on their AS demand curves. Again we have very
  • 03:22:11segmented AS demand curves that goes from one to the
  • 03:22:14other and they were considering whether or not there should be ramp ins on
  • 03:22:18those products and I won't unpack that, but suffice it
  • 03:22:21to say they're going to come to the next meeting hopefully with more details and
  • 03:22:25or file a memo sooner than that. So at this point we've also
  • 03:22:29posted our 2025 meeting dates. We will start to
  • 03:22:32include technical workshops which we had before within the rttf.
  • 03:22:36So we'll have everything under one umbrella each day of the month
  • 03:22:41and then the next meeting is on November 13th.
  • 03:22:44So let me talk about two more issues and then I'm done.
  • 03:22:47I know I'm talking fast. I hate it when meetings are running long.
  • 03:22:50Sorry about that next slide and
  • 03:22:56what it will say when it comes up. So when we had
  • 03:23:00the RTC task force in 2019
  • 03:23:03and 2020, we were getting stuck on some things
  • 03:23:07that we didn't need to get stuck on. Essentially things like numbers like
  • 03:23:10that, the AS proxy offer
  • 03:23:13floor. Like we could spend a whole lot of time debating whether that should be
  • 03:23:17$0 or $2,000 or we can just make it a parameter and
  • 03:23:21move on. So that's how we were able to stay unsafe, stuck at the
  • 03:23:25task force and develop those 500 pages of protocol
  • 03:23:28revisions and get those Approved, but now we have to go back and fill in
  • 03:23:31the blank. And so those are. We flag those parameters and TAC
  • 03:23:35approved parameters and protocols. And here's an example, this is in our Fox
  • 03:23:39protocols is that the proxy ancillary service offer price scores
  • 03:23:43shall be approved by TAC and posted on the ERCOT website.
  • 03:23:47So this is almost created in another other binding document to
  • 03:23:52capture these. Well, we had to talk with legal and there's a. We're finding
  • 03:23:56some problems in that current approach. So number one,
  • 03:23:59in recent years we've been getting away from other finding documents. We'd rather
  • 03:24:03have things in protocols. It's also worth noting that sometimes
  • 03:24:07things are outside of protocols because they change a lot, that these would not
  • 03:24:11be frequently changed, rather that we were deferring them until they
  • 03:24:14could be settled and memorialized. And then there's also a risk
  • 03:24:18that we could end up with a TAC approved parameter and whether or not that
  • 03:24:22parameter may be appealed with no easy governance structure to
  • 03:24:25follow it forward and get a resolution. So pretend that the proxy
  • 03:24:29ads offer price floors became very divisive.
  • 03:24:33We got the TAC and it barely passed and then people wanted to escalate it.
  • 03:24:37And so, you know, rather than have it floating around in a parameter paper,
  • 03:24:41ERCOT Legal is advising that ERCOT worked with the task force
  • 03:24:44to sponsor maybe one, maybe a couple of NPRRs
  • 03:24:48to capture these TAC approved items that fall
  • 03:24:51in that example above. And rather than having this TAC
  • 03:24:55approved, just go ahead and hardwire the number into the
  • 03:24:58protocol and as the task force over the next three months
  • 03:25:02articulates and comes up with those numbers, that NPRR then
  • 03:25:06becomes the memorial stone for the decision.
  • 03:25:09And that goes up through tactics, the board and the puc.
  • 03:25:13And then we've been agreed to those parameters as needed for
  • 03:25:16go live. So rather than have this hodgepodge of hack approved
  • 03:25:20things, it'll be in a single. I'm calling it an omnibus NPRR.
  • 03:25:24If that's too dangerous, we need to break them apart into separate NPRRs. We can,
  • 03:25:28but the idea is how to keep things from getting stuck
  • 03:25:32and having approval so we can go live with parameters that are in place.
  • 03:25:36And then the last slide is,
  • Clip 13.1 - Endorse RTC+B Market Trials Plan
    03:25:42yeah, it's my request. I've hinted at this a couple times already. We developed
  • 03:25:46the market trials plan. It's an eight pager. We reviewed it
  • 03:25:49four times with the RTC+B task force. We had some great back
  • 03:25:54and forth, some details and especially on the
  • 03:25:57low frequency control test, we deferred some of those details into the
  • 03:26:01handbook. So we've Kind of softened the language in the
  • 03:26:04plan without sacrificing the objective
  • 03:26:08of the plan and the timing of the plan and the entry and exit criteria.
  • 03:26:12So the how we kind of pulled off into the handbook development,
  • 03:26:16but everyone was pleased with it and no one has a problem at the
  • 03:26:19task force that was voiced with moving this to TAC for endorsement
  • 03:26:23as an implementation artifact to have an agreed to plan for
  • 03:26:27go live. So with that, the final version was posted at
  • 03:26:31the final black line with the TAC materials and I don't know if we need
  • 03:26:33to open that up or. But we are seeking tax endorsement
  • 03:26:37of that market trials plan. With that
  • 03:26:41I'll open up for questions. I see one from Nick.
  • 03:26:46Thanks, Matt. The only comment I had was just to
  • 03:26:49thank you for the feedback and discussion on the development of
  • 03:26:52that market trials plan, you know, for the benefit
  • 03:26:56of TAC members. You know, ERCOT was really good
  • 03:26:59about, you know, having back and forth as we work through some
  • 03:27:02of the nuances of how exactly to
  • 03:27:06make sure that they can. We've got a process to test
  • 03:27:12those features out in a way that will actually work for market participants as
  • 03:27:16they're developing their RTC system. So I
  • 03:27:20don't have any. Anything other than supporting TAC
  • 03:27:24moving forward with or endorsing this market trials plan.
  • 03:27:28Right. Yeah. If we can open that up real quick. Caitlyn app. Let's do that.
  • 03:27:32It'll be good because I can just kind of show what it is.
  • 03:27:36And in talking with Luminan
  • 03:27:39and a couple others, we realized that there were some blind spots on how we
  • 03:27:43were thinking about this. But again, why don't we go down to the LFC test
  • 03:27:47and I'll just like highlight the example of where we talked about changes down
  • 03:27:50around page six, if you don't mind,
  • 03:27:54a little further down. That was six. I was lying. Go a
  • 03:27:58little further. Next one should be the closed
  • 03:28:01loop LFC test section. Okay, there we go.
  • 03:28:04So down there, if you hold right there, you'll see in bold
  • 03:28:07font there. Further details will be jointly developed with
  • 03:28:11queasies in the LFC handbook in a manner that queasies can support and
  • 03:28:15or that ERCOT can assist and workarounds that may be needed to ensure
  • 03:28:19reliable production tests. So not to bore everyone,
  • 03:28:22but ERCOT came in and said we want the queasies to submit
  • 03:28:26their offers in a way and their telemetry in a way to
  • 03:28:29make sure that when we switch over to the RRTC systems for two
  • 03:28:33hours that it matches what's currently going on. And the education
  • 03:28:37was, hey, ERCOT, we can't dummy up our data to make it fit
  • 03:28:41that we're using production like data for some of this. So let's talk
  • 03:28:44about details of the flexibility in the test and how ERCOT
  • 03:28:48may need to assist with putting guardrails in the LFC
  • 03:28:52test so that the queasies don't have to deploy yet
  • 03:28:55another environment or do some things that they weren't intending to do.
  • 03:28:59So it was really about kind of a back and forth on how to optimize
  • 03:29:03the reliability of the test and make it successful.
  • 03:29:05So again, we thank you for the sharpening that. And we're
  • 03:29:09punching that topic out into the handbook, not because it's easy, but because we'll know
  • 03:29:13more in another three or four months.
  • 03:29:17So this is an example of what the handbook looks like. Defined objectives,
  • 03:29:20entry criteria, exit criteria, scorecards,
  • 03:29:23and that's it. So if there's any questions
  • 03:29:26on the handbook. Happy to. Happy to take those. Now I
  • 03:29:34don't have any questions. So we are looking for a vote
  • 03:29:38though on what are we calling that?
  • 03:29:41Endorsement of the RTC+B market trials plan
  • 03:29:45on the second to last slide has sorted and I
  • 03:29:49see a request for a combo. I just wanted to.
  • 03:29:52I think you talked about this. So it's
  • 03:29:57just to kind of get documentation of this. We're not required to
  • 03:30:01vote anywhere, I don't think. And the board.
  • 03:30:04This doesn't go to the board or to the commission after us. It's just sort
  • 03:30:08of formalizing, making this document a little bit more formal
  • 03:30:12among the ERCOT documents. I'm glad you asked the right way.
  • 03:30:16Correct. The document stays here and lives here at
  • 03:30:19pac. And if we're having challenges with the queasy months from
  • 03:30:23now and they're like ERCOT, what gives you the right to this? It's like we
  • 03:30:25have a TAC approved document of this was how we're going to engage this.
  • 03:30:28And so I will advise the board that this has been memorialized
  • 03:30:32and TAC approved, but it states here endorsed by TAC.
  • 03:30:36Really? And that the board does not need to take action on it.
  • 03:30:40Yep. All right. I'm supportive of
  • 03:30:44combo ballot as well. Any objection to that?
  • 03:30:48Okay, I don't see any. Thank you. Matt,
  • 03:30:51do you need anything further from us? No, thank you, TAC.
  • 03:30:55Not right now. Right.
  • 03:30:58And then the training videos, when those, where will those be
  • 03:31:02posted and will there be any notification on that?
  • 03:31:06There will be. I think Eric snuck into the queue here. We have
  • 03:31:10paid them. I'm working with Amy Lofton on how to get it.
  • 03:31:13We believe it'll be on the RTC+BTF meeting
  • 03:31:17page. And so we'll carve out whether or not it's a page off of
  • 03:31:21that or just supporting key materials. Under that
  • 03:31:25would be links there to be able to watch those videos.
  • 03:31:28Okay,
  • 03:31:31yeah, let me know offline when those get posted too.
  • 03:31:34And we can talk about whether that needs to be socialized
  • 03:31:38more because I think that'll be helpful to a lot of people.
  • 03:31:42You bet. It's about every other email I'm getting right now is when will there
  • 03:31:45be more training materials? So, yes, we're hot to get these out of here.
  • 03:31:48Thank you. All right.
  • 03:31:53Yeah, I certainly support putting this with the combo ballot
  • 03:31:56and was waiting till the end to not derail the conversation.
  • 03:32:00I think this is important, but I also don't
  • 03:32:05want to go back to our old style of having
  • 03:32:08things be finished at TAC.
  • 03:32:11We have modified that process. I don't want to necessarily have an
  • 03:32:15ad hoc process, to have something that is
  • 03:32:19TAC approved and then have questions about what, what that means in
  • 03:32:22the future. I don't think this one will necessarily create
  • 03:32:25those questions, but I don't want it to be a precedent necessarily.
  • 03:32:29So just moving forward, if we can try to do stuff,
  • 03:32:33you know, following our process, I'd appreciate it. And this is just
  • 03:32:36an opportunity to mention that I don't think we need to discuss that on this
  • 03:32:40item. And just to make sure
  • 03:32:43that there's two different issues to talk about. One is memorializing, like the
  • 03:32:47TAC approved parameters and things. We're talking about taking those out and moving
  • 03:32:51them into an NPRR so that TAC approval disappears on
  • 03:32:54the requirements piece. But what it goes on with all these transitional
  • 03:32:57materials. If you think those transitional materials need to go beyond TAC, we can talk
  • 03:33:01at the task force or next TAC about that. But yeah,
  • 03:33:04it feels like the work's done, but if you'd like to move it on,
  • 03:33:06we can talk about what that might look like. I hear you. I. I don't
  • 03:33:10necessarily want to derail the work you're doing. I would rather you do the work
  • 03:33:13you need to do. But just as we move forward into the
  • 03:33:17future to think through what does approval TAC mean and
  • 03:33:21you know, etc. I don't know. We do the deliberate.
  • 03:33:24Yeah, well, I mean, just to plant the seed so we come back effectively.
  • 03:33:28For me, the only other artifacts I'll bring back similar to this are the
  • 03:33:31handbooks for each of these market trial segments and the transition cut over
  • 03:33:35plan. And aside from that, everything else. I don't think there's any other things
  • 03:33:39we'd be looking for approval of. So it's really just this market trial
  • 03:33:43genre, this theme of transitional type activity.
  • 03:33:47So open your ideas and more discussion later. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 03:33:51You bet.
  • 03:33:57Okay. Anything else for Matt?
  • 03:34:04All right, thank you. So going back to
  • 03:34:0714 or. I don't know.
  • 03:34:12Yes, 14. So that was the update
  • 03:34:16on stakeholder process and communication got confused
  • 03:34:20because on my prep that has Matt Moreno on it too. But Matt, I don't
  • 03:34:23think that's you. I think that's me. So this is on
  • 03:34:27the discussion that we. We had at
  • 03:34:30the last TAC. I think that was a really good discussion. We spent a couple
  • 03:34:34of hours on it. Commission staff was involved, which I think
  • 03:34:38was really good. I got a lot of positive feedback.
  • Clip 14 - Update of Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith
    03:34:42 I just wanted to give an update, kind of summary on the
  • 03:34:46improved communication aspects we're working on. So as
  • 03:34:50you guys have noticed, Barksdale has been in the
  • 03:34:54meeting. I think commission staff going forward will plan
  • 03:34:57to be in the meeting. I don't know how active they will be and
  • 03:35:02maybe I should stop calling on them so much, but they will be in the
  • 03:35:05meeting. We had the effort to include
  • 03:35:09the subcommittee information at the board level.
  • 03:35:13We touched on that earlier today at R&M.
  • 03:35:16I also did a presentation on stakeholder process.
  • 03:35:20I think at R&M I'd like to go and find forward,
  • 03:35:23include, you know, something maybe not a
  • 03:35:27revision request every time. I'm open to ideas
  • 03:35:32on those topics because I don't have an idea for the next topic.
  • 03:35:35We've discussed the kind of ERCOT responses
  • 03:35:40or filings
  • 03:35:44on the revision requested to have opposition before they go
  • 03:35:47to the board. Board Keith walked through that with us. So that's a
  • 03:35:51lot of the things we were doing to improve our communication
  • 03:35:55to the board so they understand what our position is, what analysis has
  • 03:35:58gone into it. A lot of these suggestions
  • 03:36:02around kind of improved process.
  • 03:36:05We talked a lot about what other ISOs do,
  • 03:36:09kind of the TAC duties, responsibilities,
  • 03:36:12representation. I think a lot of those would require
  • 03:36:17TAC procedure or maybe even board by law changes.
  • 03:36:20My understanding is that the board is working on
  • 03:36:24some ideas, maybe with the PUC as well. We're hoping
  • 03:36:28to have, as he mentioned at the October board meeting, we're hoping to
  • 03:36:32have Chairman Flores to one of these TAC
  • 03:36:35meetings, hopefully the next one. And so that's just sort of
  • 03:36:39a summary of what we've been doing. So I think
  • 03:36:43we could take further discussion at another meeting. As I said, I think
  • 03:36:46a lot of those ideas required changes
  • 03:36:50to some document. And so I Think we'd probably need
  • 03:36:54to see that come from a stakeholder or maybe
  • 03:36:57have some further discussion here at the behest
  • 03:37:01of a stakeholder. Anybody have any
  • 03:37:04comments on that at this time? I think it'll an ongoing conversation.
  • 03:37:15Don't see any comments.
  • 03:37:21All right, I think we can move on then.
  • 03:37:25Okay, so now you didn't get much of a break. I think we are back
  • 03:37:29to Matt and the CRRAH
  • 03:37:32to transaction limit. All right, thank you again, Caitlin.
  • Clip 15.2 - Reduce per CRRAH Transaction Limit - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness
    03:37:36 So, TAC, I just want to appreciate the leadership allowing
  • 03:37:40me to kind of get this on last minute into the agenda.
  • 03:37:44As you know, we had a transaction adjustment period trigger just
  • 03:37:48a couple weeks ago. That's the third time in a year that we've
  • 03:37:52had that happen. So I want to kind of back up and read everybody in.
  • 03:37:55I know I've been to TAC a couple times with the challenges,
  • 03:37:58but so I'll just kind of. I have six slides.
  • 03:38:01So ERCOT's experienced significant increases in
  • 03:38:04the number of CRRAH account holders participating.
  • 03:38:08And we have a oversubscribed long term auction sequence.
  • 03:38:12We've had that three times the transaction adjustment
  • 03:38:15period. If you're not familiar with it, it's where it kicks out all the portfolios
  • 03:38:18that have over a certain number and they have to resubmit them all
  • 03:38:22again. And so where we go in with a 4000
  • 03:38:26limit for HDR account holder, when we oversubscribe it triggers
  • 03:38:30to where then they have to adjust their portfolios and resubmit to
  • 03:38:34get down to 1380. So we're proposing
  • 03:38:37today is that TAC to improve an overall lower CRRAH account holder
  • 03:38:41since there's more people. It doesn't really fit that 400,000
  • 03:38:45limit to immediately mitigate the frequency of these oversubscribed
  • 03:38:51transactions. And so by reducing the 4000 down to
  • 03:38:552800 will get us below that. I will say updated
  • 03:38:58news and I didn't update the slides, but we could also support
  • 03:39:023000 being the magic number that comes out of this and
  • 03:39:06let that kind of sink in for a minute. As we go through this,
  • 03:39:09I'll explain why TAC and how TAC can change that number.
  • 03:39:12And I'll show you some numbers that hopefully in the next couple slides that'll connect
  • 03:39:15all this together. So next slide.
  • 03:39:19So what we have is this the way
  • 03:39:23to read this graphic on the far left is that sequence one is when
  • 03:39:27we sell 90% of the model for six months out and then sequence
  • 03:39:30two is the model six months further out from that and
  • 03:39:34then the next one is six months out from that. So we do these
  • 03:39:38six month really options for three years. So that's how you have six
  • 03:39:42of these. And it goes from nine, sorry, goes from 70% of the model
  • 03:39:46down to 10% of the model from left to right and then it resets and
  • 03:39:50we go back to sequence one again. And then we march down through the
  • 03:39:53outer months and then we go to sequence one again
  • 03:39:56and you'll see how the numbers have gone higher and higher.
  • 03:40:01So this last sequence one we had oversubscribed that
  • 03:40:04495 you see up there. So I'm sorry, just to give you a perspective,
  • 03:40:09just last December, December of 2023, we implemented our
  • 03:40:13system to be able to support 400,000 bids.
  • 03:40:16We're up at 495 is what we hit
  • 03:40:20six months ago. And we hit 506,000 again.
  • 03:40:23So we are just. The 4,000 limit of individuals
  • 03:40:28doesn't meet the overall system
  • 03:40:32limit of 400,000. So we're trying to find the right number
  • 03:40:35to pull that volume back down to where
  • 03:40:38if everyone submits what they want to, it's not up at 495, it's down
  • 03:40:42more at the 440 or 450. And we can support
  • 03:40:46a little bit beyond 400,000. But obviously like the 500,000
  • 03:40:50is actually bigger than our array size. We aren't built for this.
  • 03:40:53And so next slide. Did you
  • 03:40:56hear that Jack 16 is traded for the one.
  • 03:41:01Sorry, I got a John Rich, you're getting a open line there.
  • 03:41:05And so more details. So while ERCOT Systems can support 400,000 again,
  • 03:41:09that's what we just implemented with SCR807. Sometimes we
  • 03:41:12can go all the way up to 475 at
  • 03:41:16our discretion, but it's getting too high. And so
  • 03:41:19we've been working on CNWG with some nodal protocol revisions concepts
  • 03:41:23to limit this and to lower those limits. But until we get
  • 03:41:27that change in protocols, we're kind of stuck with what's on the previous TAC
  • 03:41:31approval. So ERCOT suggesting that TAC
  • 03:41:36immediately take a vote today on lowering the limit from 4,000 down
  • 03:41:40to 3,000 for all CRRAH long term auction
  • 03:41:43sequences. So the monthly auctions don't change at all. But on
  • 03:41:47the long term auction sequence reset the 4000 to 3000.
  • 03:41:50The last time the auction limit was increased increased was again SCR807
  • 03:41:55in December of 2023. Next slide.
  • 03:42:00So what gives you the ability to do this? So if you Open up
  • 03:42:03Protocol 7.5.2,
  • 03:42:06the TAC shall establish transaction limits for each CRRAH auction
  • 03:42:10for participating CRRAH account holders. And it
  • 03:42:14says down there in the next red section, upon TAC approval, a change in transaction
  • 03:42:17limitations. ERCOT shall post these values as part of the next regularly scheduled
  • 03:42:21CRRAH auction notice and then the last slide.
  • 03:42:27So in conclusion, ERCOT is proposing to take advantage of that language
  • 03:42:32and approve a new CRRAH account holder limit today for the long
  • 03:42:35term auction sequence of 3,000 to immediately
  • 03:42:38mitigate the frequency of these oversubscribed
  • 03:42:42auctions. And ironically, the approval today,
  • 03:42:47today is our auction notice goes out for the sequence
  • 03:42:50two and we could implement that today and that would become the value
  • 03:42:55that goes out for bids that are received over the next couple weeks.
  • 03:42:59So with that I'll wrap it up and see if there's any question.
  • 03:43:09Okay, questions from.
  • 03:43:13Yep, go ahead. This is
  • 03:43:17Mark Price from DC Energy. Are you able to hear me?
  • 03:43:21Yes, go ahead. I guess I have a, I guess a question,
  • 03:43:25a comment and a request. So bear with me as
  • 03:43:28I go through these. Starting with the question,
  • 03:43:32since we're sort of jumping to the TAC here with this
  • 03:43:36proposal today and sort of when the CMWG
  • 03:43:40is working on some long term solutions, is this proposal
  • 03:43:45temporary in nature as in when the CMWG
  • 03:43:48gets some of the longer term solutions to this problem that we go back
  • 03:43:52to 4000 or do you view this as permanently reducing the
  • 03:43:56bid count for account holders? In my
  • 03:43:59mind it's permanently until we get that out of CMWG
  • 03:44:03with again, what we're taking to CMWG
  • 03:44:07is removing TAC approval altogether. And the ERCOT and
  • 03:44:11every auction notice will provide the populations
  • 03:44:14and percentages of what it think it can support in every auction
  • 03:44:18to support liquidity while minimizing the risk of a
  • 03:44:21transaction adjustment period. The sweet spot for that on this
  • 03:44:25particular auction is 3,000 and that's why
  • 03:44:28we're proposing it this way. So this is not, this is, this is a
  • 03:44:31stop gap and it's okay if TAC doesn't approve this today and we'll
  • 03:44:35leave it at 4,000 and it's a 80 to
  • 03:44:3890% chance it'll be oversubscribed though.
  • 03:44:43Okay, so we're trying to keep the market from driving into another
  • 03:44:47transaction adjustment process. Yep. And we agree with you
  • 03:44:51on trying to avoid the transaction adjustment process. I guess
  • 03:44:55where DC Energy has some concerns is
  • 03:44:59applying this across all sequences equally.
  • 03:45:02We do see from the data that ERCOT has presented to
  • 03:45:06the CMWG as well as to the TAC that there is
  • 03:45:09a need for this in the later sequences you guys presented
  • 03:45:13or you guys have stated, the goal is to get the solution
  • 03:45:16runtime for the Optimization to be under 100 hours,
  • 03:45:20because that allows you the chance to rerun it if there's an issue and
  • 03:45:24still meet your deadline of posting the results in
  • 03:45:27time. And you guys presented analysis that showed that
  • 03:45:31for the later sequences four or five sits,
  • 03:45:34you end up getting over 100 hours regularly with the number of bids
  • 03:45:37you guys are seeing. However,
  • 03:45:41we. The data that's been presented doesn't show this
  • 03:45:44issue for the earlier sequences, sequences 1, 1, 2, 3.
  • 03:45:48We haven't actually run a sequence 1 or 2
  • 03:45:51without an adjustment process in over a year now.
  • 03:45:55And just going back to that is.
  • 03:45:59So we ran a sequence one a year ago, it had 450,000
  • 03:46:02bids and it was solved in under 60
  • 03:46:06hours. So it met the criteria that ERCOT set out of
  • 03:46:10solving it in 100 hours. Since that
  • 03:46:13time, there's been a number of software upgrades and the
  • 03:46:17Chief Information Officer of ERCOT gave a presentation to the
  • 03:46:20board that the new software upgrades that were implemented
  • 03:46:24in June and September of this year were able to actually
  • 03:46:27reduce the solve time of the CRRAH LTAS auctions by
  • 03:46:3170 to 80%. So our thought is
  • 03:46:34that this latest sequence, sequence one that had 506,000
  • 03:46:38bids, so about 50 to 60,000 more bids than
  • 03:46:42the one that solved in 60 hours.
  • 03:46:47With the new software, you probably would be able to solve that
  • 03:46:50in less than 100 hours. And therefore
  • 03:46:54what we're, I guess, requesting is that ERCOT
  • 03:46:58test the ability of the engine, the new software,
  • 03:47:01to solve some of these earlier sequences, namely 1
  • 03:47:05and 2, with the bids that you guys received to see if
  • 03:47:08we actually do have a problem before we start permanently
  • 03:47:13restricting liquidity into these auctions. I guess. So that's our,
  • 03:47:17that's our request. Very good. Wow.
  • 03:47:21There's a lot to say. At the risk of breaking into another CMWG meeting,
  • 03:47:24let me tell. Let's go back a slide and I will try to unpack,
  • 03:47:28I think, kind of the two or three dimensions of your question.
  • 03:47:31Number one, this is not. Go back to the graphic with the. The auction
  • 03:47:35participation. We, we are at a point where
  • 03:47:38the bids are coming in so high on sequence one and two. It's,
  • 03:47:42it's outside of our array size. So we need to engage the vendor to
  • 03:47:46go beyond 500,000. ERCOT met the mark nine
  • 03:47:49months ago and gave the market what it asked for, which was 400,000.
  • 03:47:53We've blown through that and now we're breaking the next barrier.
  • 03:47:57So I appreciate the idea that we might be able to get it to solve,
  • 03:48:00but right now our software can't hold it and we're going to go off
  • 03:48:04this. You know, it's, it's oversubscribed
  • 03:48:08on the front end because it's too many. Now the risk on the
  • 03:48:11back end is as we get into this sequence 4,
  • 03:48:155 and 6 on a much smaller topology, even with
  • 03:48:18less bids, we are fighting for performance
  • 03:48:23in a way that we haven't had to do. And where the 180
  • 03:48:27hours was one of our auctions, another one. These are auctions that are taken over
  • 03:48:30a week to solve by reducing it to 3,000 backs us
  • 03:48:34off the cliff not only on these front two auctions but also on
  • 03:48:38this back two auctions. And by taking this 25%
  • 03:48:41haircut on some stakeholders, it will protect the rest of
  • 03:48:45the market liquidity to be able to fully function, offer in
  • 03:48:49and be secure in knowing that ERCOT is going to be able to execute
  • 03:48:53without a transaction adjustment process and publish result
  • 03:48:57without wondering if we're going to get caught in a ditch again. And so we
  • 03:49:00are at the, I would say at the edge of our technology right now and
  • 03:49:04if we didn't have the software and hardware upgrade that were set in place over
  • 03:49:08the last few months, that 180 hour auction would not
  • 03:49:12have solved. So thank heavens that we have made progress and we
  • 03:49:15are seeing things improve by 50 to 70% in the lab
  • 03:49:19and we're seeing some of those but not all the time in production. So we've
  • 03:49:22made a lot of progress but the market is growing faster
  • 03:49:25than we can keep up and that's why we are willing to engage on a,
  • 03:49:30almost call it a CRRAH redesign with the CMWG,
  • 03:49:35whether or not to start to change things differently such as
  • 03:49:39getting rid of the, the multi
  • 03:49:43month bids. So we're working very collaboratively with
  • 03:49:46CMWG. I brought this as a Hail Mary to
  • 03:49:50TAC to say do you want to stop a transaction adjustment period?
  • 03:49:53If so, please approve this new
  • 03:49:56lower level. And that will head off two things, the oversubscription
  • 03:50:00right now and the performance issue until we get things under control.
  • 03:50:05Matthew, we. I appreciate that answer.
  • 03:50:09This is the 500k limitation to
  • 03:50:12your software is something new that I have not heard
  • 03:50:16at the CMWG or in this forum as well, which I
  • 03:50:19guess maybe gives me a little pause to the solutions that were
  • 03:50:23so the problem as it was stated in the CMWG is the
  • 03:50:27solve time being 100 hours or more. And now the problem
  • 03:50:31seems to be also that there's a 500k software limit to the
  • 03:50:35bids taken but the solutions that we're pursuing in the CMWG
  • 03:50:39to break out multi months would actually increase the number of bids
  • 03:50:43into this. So we'd actually be creating
  • 03:50:46a bigger problem by our solution. So perhaps there's
  • 03:50:50maybe a need for some better communication of what limitations we're currently
  • 03:50:54facing are so that we can appropriately come up with solutions
  • 03:50:58that address them. Yeah. And as I support
  • 03:51:01it, and I'll be at every CMWG going forward with the team, is that Samantha,
  • 03:51:05Alfredo and myself all agreed to come out of the box and say
  • 03:51:09let's go outside of protocols and look at different solutions and work collaboratively
  • 03:51:12at CMWG about how to get to the next generation of performance.
  • 03:51:16And you're right, a half million is not our cap.
  • 03:51:19It's just the way that it was implemented was the 400,000 and it
  • 03:51:23was that, you know, 25% overhead in case. But obviously that'll
  • 03:51:27be something that changes as we look at those midterm type
  • 03:51:30changes. So we're open to, we're open to options. We're just
  • 03:51:33trying to protect the health of the market as an operator right
  • 03:51:37now and we see 3,000 as being the best place for that.
  • 03:51:45So I think that what you're seeing in terms of communications is
  • 03:51:48this is because it's been a rapidly evolving issue. We've had a lot of cooks
  • 03:51:52in the kitchen trying to resolve it. And we've been at CMWG consistently answering
  • 03:51:56all the questions we can on how to move forward. And so we brought,
  • 03:51:59I think it's nine options forward and we're sharpening that to say we're
  • 03:52:02going to drop NPRRs here in the next couple months to start to get traction
  • 03:52:05and actually implement solutions as quickly as possible.
  • 03:52:09And the solution to the 500k problem is that something that is actively
  • 03:52:13being worked on as well. I'll have to look into that.
  • 03:52:22Oh, and by the way, we are testing upwards of how,
  • 03:52:26how high we can get. I'm sorry, that was your other question. Are we testing
  • 03:52:29beyond this? And the answer is yes.
  • 03:52:32I just to clarify, on that front, you're able to
  • 03:52:36test the 506,000 bits that you got in the sequence, one that recently
  • 03:52:40went to tap. We do have that ability in
  • 03:52:43production. We have different array sizing and so we've been able to
  • 03:52:47do something in the lab that we can't do in production. So we're working on
  • 03:52:51that. We can update CWG as we find results, but we haven't
  • 03:52:54done that yet. Right now we're studying the taking out the multi
  • 03:52:58month bids as requested by CMWG. That was the biggest
  • 03:53:01Priority. And we have studied that and look forward to sharing it.
  • 03:53:06Thank you. You're welcome. I see
  • 03:53:09Clayton in the queue. Yeah. After all
  • 03:53:13that, I'm going to give you a dumb question.
  • 03:53:16The number of nodes is going to increase. I forget.
  • 03:53:20It's not linear as the like. If we increase the
  • 03:53:24number of nodes that doesn't cause us to lose.
  • 03:53:27It's actually that the actual offers that come in or the bids that come in.
  • 03:53:30Right? Yes. So there's not like if we
  • 03:53:34get a lot more nodes, that doesn't mean we're going to significantly
  • 03:53:38reduce the number of bids that anybody can put in,
  • 03:53:42Correct? Yeah, I guess it depends on how binding constraints they
  • 03:53:45create. So that is a concern, I guess. At CMWG
  • 03:53:49we said there's three things. Changing the number of CRRAH account holders themselves, the number
  • 03:53:53of settlement points and as well as
  • 03:53:57the number of bids for peoples. Okay.
  • 03:54:01And so just so I get a kind of a general idea because we may
  • 03:54:04see a doubling of resource nodes in the future.
  • 03:54:07Yeah. Is that's not a one to one. Right.
  • 03:54:11Which could be almost a squared thing in some ways. Yeah. Because you
  • 03:54:15could end up with so many more paths. If you introduce two more points.
  • 03:54:18There's four different ways it could flow. But yeah, I'll let smarter people answer
  • 03:54:22that if they need to. But yeah, that is a concern and we brought that
  • 03:54:25forward. Is more settlement points is a more complicated solution. You're correct.
  • 03:54:30Okay, thank you.
  • 03:54:39Any other questions? I don't see any.
  • 03:54:44Okay, well the second to last slide or the last slide would be if TAC
  • 03:54:47wants to consider this. It's a thought and request is a.
  • 03:54:55And what this does is it would go into meeting minutes and those meeting minutes
  • 03:54:58become the binding, become our way of signaling that
  • 03:55:01this is the TAC approved parameter. That's how we did it with the
  • 03:55:05last time with SCR807 went in for the
  • 03:55:08400,000. That's when the 4,000 was set with the
  • 03:55:12approval. So in the same way that when TAC approves this new limit
  • 03:55:16of 3,000 that would just the TAC
  • 03:55:19meeting minutes become that authorization for us to change the value.
  • 03:55:23And we could use that starting today if
  • 03:55:30people want to put that on the ballot.
  • 03:55:33Okay, so what would go on the ballot would be to approve
  • 03:55:39the limit for all long term auction sequences.
  • 03:55:43And the limit would be 3,000.
  • 03:55:46Yes, Wilson. Okay,
  • 03:55:50Bill Burns,
  • 03:55:54I can hear you.
  • 03:55:58Can you repeat that? Go ahead, Bill. I'm just making
  • 03:56:02sure you guys can hear me. Yes, now we can.
  • 03:56:06Okay. I'd be willing to make A motion to
  • 03:56:11adopt what Matt is suggesting immediately.
  • 03:56:14Matt, we have seen your team struggle to try to keep up with
  • 03:56:18this activity. Numerous proposals,
  • 03:56:21various upgrades to the CRRAH system.
  • 03:56:25Just doing everything you can to try to keep up.
  • 03:56:29And I feel for you as a large
  • 03:56:32market participant that heads with our load position. We do not.
  • 03:56:36We're not comfortable with the risk of having our bids curtailed
  • 03:56:40at the last second. So we would rather have certainty with a
  • 03:56:44smaller bid amount up front to help mitigate this
  • 03:56:47issue. And we definitely look forward to the longer term discussion
  • 03:56:50as well. So happy to.
  • 03:56:55If that's the will TAC. Yep. Does anybody
  • 03:56:58have any problems with this going on the combo ballot?
  • 03:57:07Okay. The three question marks. Got it done. So we can put it on
  • 03:57:11the combo ballot. Any other questions
  • 03:57:15or comments for Matt?
  • 03:57:19Big thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.
  • 03:57:23Okay. And thank you for doing that,
  • 03:57:27Matt. I know it was last minute, but you got the materials to us very
  • 03:57:32quickly. So I appreciate you doing all that work to get it to us last
  • 03:57:36minute. All right. We are onto
  • 03:57:40ERCOT's framework for evaluating market design with Keith.
  • 03:57:45He has presented this at WMS. I believe we have some updates,
  • 03:57:50including kind of next steps for feedback and discussion.
  • 03:57:55And hopefully we still have the animation.
  • 03:57:59I hope so. Yeah, it should be in there. Thanks, Caitlin.
  • 03:58:02Awesome. You'll see me. Oh, and I
  • 03:58:06forgot his effort to be on video. I'm not going to get on
  • 03:58:09video. All right, well,
  • 03:58:12I'll be on video. I'm not shy, so I
  • 03:58:16think it's just a good practice when you're speaking. It's nice. So I'll
  • Clip 15.3 - ERCOTs Framework for Evaluating Market Design - Keith Collins
    03:58:20do it and hopefully others will join. So I
  • 03:58:24did present this framework. It was actually originally presented by
  • 03:58:28Pablo at the August board meeting.
  • 03:58:32And he and I talked and said, well, geez, it'd be good to get
  • 03:58:36this out, get this out to
  • 03:58:42others in other forums. So we did present this at the WMS
  • 03:58:46a few weeks back and why not also at the TAC? It seems like
  • 03:58:50a really good opportunity to do that as well. So it's. You'll see that if
  • 03:58:54you listen in on either of those discussions at the board
  • 03:58:58or at the WMS, very similar. But as Caitlin said,
  • 03:59:02there is some additional items that I've captured in this one that makes it
  • 03:59:05a little bit different than the others. So we'll start
  • 03:59:09at the beginning, the mission and vision. And I think
  • 03:59:13it's important to recognize that obviously ERCOT
  • 03:59:16is about reliability. It's in our name. But I do
  • 03:59:20want to point out that efficient electricity markets is
  • 03:59:23a part of the mission. And when we look at that and the vision,
  • 03:59:29these are sort of key things we want the efficient
  • 03:59:33markets and the independent insights from
  • 03:59:36ERCOT on electricity markets. And so those are key
  • 03:59:40things and I think they'll sort of shape what this
  • 03:59:44framework, help us think about the framework and what that means.
  • 03:59:47All right, next slide.
  • 03:59:52All right. And then also thinking at strategic
  • 03:59:56documents and strategic level discussion is what
  • 04:00:01are some of the key strategic objectives that ERCOT has?
  • 04:00:04And. And obviously reliability, resilience at the top,
  • 04:00:08very important to us. And ultimately the
  • 04:00:12markets support that. And I think that's really important,
  • 04:00:15that the markets are driving reliability and resilience. And if we're not,
  • 04:00:19we need to think about changing that, obviously. But those
  • 04:00:23are key things to focus on as well as the second point,
  • 04:00:27which is enhancing the economic competitiveness
  • 04:00:32of our market relative to other locations, other markets.
  • 04:00:36Right. Both at the wholesale and retail level. So that's really important.
  • 04:00:39And then obviously, industry experts
  • 04:00:43and employer of choice are also great things too. So we'll
  • 04:00:48move forward to the next slide.
  • 04:00:52So one of the ways, particularly when you start thinking about efficiency,
  • 04:00:56is, is this concept of, hey, we need to use the right tool
  • 04:01:00for the job at hand. And so as we go
  • 04:01:03and we click through the slides here, so if we click to the next.
  • 04:01:06All right, so different tools have different tasks.
  • 04:01:10And so if we click again, if you think of your tool
  • 04:01:13shed, right, well, we got different tools in our tool shed.
  • 04:01:16We've got a rake, we've got our shovel, we got our pitchfork.
  • 04:01:22Different tools for different tasks that we need to accomplish.
  • 04:01:25And so if we click again, we've got,
  • 04:01:29hey, if we have to dig a hole, we grab
  • 04:01:33our shovel, right? And if we click again, if we've got to pick
  • 04:01:37up our leaves, we grab a rake, right?
  • 04:01:39So the right tool, the right task,
  • 04:01:43it's really efficient, right? So if
  • 04:01:46we click again, when we start thinking about
  • 04:01:50what the framework helps us do is it starts telling us
  • 04:01:53like, hey, what are the tasks we need to achieve?
  • 04:01:57Right. How are we going to reliably and affordably
  • 04:02:01operate the grid? And what are those tools in that tool shed that
  • 04:02:05we have in terms of market tools and market design, that's going
  • 04:02:09to help us get to achieve those sort of twin objectives
  • 04:02:12that we have. Right, Next slide or next. Next quick
  • 04:02:16end. Yep. Design the markets efficiently and you'll
  • 04:02:19get what you need. And so as we're aligning the
  • 04:02:23market tools with the tasks,
  • 04:02:26it becomes much like what we're seeing here with our animation,
  • 04:02:31is you're aligning the hey, dig a hole, grab the shovel, do the. Do the
  • 04:02:35leaves, grab a rake. And the same thing can be said about these
  • 04:02:38markets, tools and incentives, but the word of caution
  • 04:02:42is that we click one more time is if we
  • 04:02:46use the wrong tool, you can create
  • 04:02:49some inefficiencies. So it's sort of like saying, hey, I need
  • 04:02:53you to dig a hole. Let's go grab the rake. Right? Well, yeah,
  • 04:02:57you could probably scratch something or whatever,
  • 04:03:00but it's going to take you a while, and it's not going to be a
  • 04:03:03very effective hole. You probably get something after a while
  • 04:03:07in addition to some blisters and a broken rake.
  • 04:03:11But, yeah, inefficient. And then the same thing with the leaves is
  • 04:03:14we could grab the shovel and you can push the leaves around, but once
  • 04:03:18the wind comes, it's going to be a different thing. So be efficient
  • 04:03:22with your tools and how you're designing your market, and it'll achieve
  • 04:03:25the objectives that you want more effectively. All right,
  • 04:03:29next slide. And so
  • 04:03:33when we think of that, let's think about,
  • 04:03:36what are those? How are we going to achieve reliability and affordably operate
  • 04:03:41the grid? What are some of those attributes? What might they look
  • 04:03:44like? And having these frameworks will help us sort
  • 04:03:48of think through that. And are we achieving the objectives we
  • 04:03:52need? We're sort of in this changing. Obviously, energy transition
  • 04:03:56seems to come up all the time. Obviously we're having a lot more solar,
  • 04:04:01in particular, storage resources, wind, sort of
  • 04:04:05very different from where we were 10, 15 years ago when a lot
  • 04:04:09of these designs like Nodal was put in place. It just
  • 04:04:12had a different view. And so we got to start thinking about, well,
  • 04:04:16okay, well, are we achieving everything that
  • 04:04:21we need to achieve? And given these changing and
  • 04:04:24different circumstances? And so that framework will help these decision makers
  • 04:04:28in particular and policymakers think about this rather than
  • 04:04:32sort of thinking about all the individual initiatives,
  • 04:04:36RTC or DRS, or all these acronyms
  • 04:04:40and abbreviations of everything. And what does that all mean?
  • 04:04:43Well, DRS, we're talking about
  • 04:04:47flexibility, dispatchability, you're talking about RTC,
  • 04:04:51you're talking about efficiency, right? These are tools that help you
  • 04:04:54gain different things in the market. And they're not. They're not bad things. They're good
  • 04:04:58at what they do. But,
  • 04:05:02you know, and so if we think about it in those terms, we'll make better
  • 04:05:05decisions. All right, next slide.
  • 04:05:11All right, so let's talk about what
  • 04:05:15these attributes are. Right? So flexibility,
  • 04:05:18dependability, availability, resiliency, quality, efficiency, location,
  • 04:05:22things that we need to consider as part of this
  • 04:05:26framework. Right. And again,
  • 04:05:29when you have forecasted resources,
  • 04:05:33that's different from resources that
  • 04:05:38are more controllable, like your traditional thermal fleet.
  • 04:05:41So very different attributes that
  • 04:05:46the new resources bring. And so it helps us think about,
  • 04:05:48well, what do we need? And something
  • 04:05:51to think about is, well, you don't get something if you don't pay for
  • 04:05:55it. It's like, oh, okay, well, if you want flexibility
  • 04:05:58or want availability, you need to sort of ask for it. If you're not asking
  • 04:06:01for it, you're not paying for it, you're not receiving.
  • 04:06:05So this slide helps us sort of drill into what some of
  • 04:06:09those key elements are within those. Those particular
  • 04:06:13attributes. I won't read through all of them. I know you can
  • 04:06:17read. And obviously take a look at the presentation as well
  • 04:06:20to give you a sense of what it is that we're really talking about.
  • 04:06:22But it's covering how we think we can
  • 04:06:26create that reliability and affordability going forward.
  • 04:06:30All right, next slide.
  • 04:06:35All right, so when we brought this, the Wholesale Market
  • 04:06:39subcommittee, we had some good feedback. And what I
  • 04:06:42tried to do in this slide is to capture the essence
  • 04:06:46of some of that feedback that we did receive.
  • 04:06:50Where does resource adequacy fit in?
  • 04:06:53How do we provide comments on this? Where's the measurement
  • 04:06:57of where you are relative to where you want to be?
  • 04:07:01Where our current initiatives fit? How do they fit within this? I think those were
  • 04:07:05all great questions. And I will say I don't have. I don't have all the
  • 04:07:09answers today, but I think what we're trying to do is
  • 04:07:12we're crafting this framework, is these are the right types of things. So I really
  • 04:07:16appreciate the discussion, and there may be some questions along
  • 04:07:20those lines today as well. And again, this is a. We're all learning
  • 04:07:23together, we're asking questions is great. How do we set a framework for
  • 04:07:27moving forward and help those decision makers think about how
  • 04:07:32to be efficient with their tools and the tool selection?
  • 04:07:36If we go to the next slide, I think the key here is
  • 04:07:40we do want your feedback, and that was one of the points. And so where
  • 04:07:46do you provide feedback? And so it seems like the TAC is a good place
  • 04:07:50to do that. And so we are requesting that
  • 04:07:54you submit your formal feedback to TAC, and I
  • 04:07:58think that'll be a good place for us to sort of have this
  • 04:08:02dialogue. And I did
  • 04:08:05put some questions here to sort of seed what you might
  • 04:08:09say. And again, I won't read all the questions,
  • 04:08:12but again, here's some things to think about if you're thinking about how to respond
  • 04:08:16or what would you like to say? Here's some
  • 04:08:20things to think about. Now, obviously you can think about other things as well related
  • 04:08:23to that, but hopefully this will get your
  • 04:08:27thoughts and juices flowing. And at a subsequent meeting
  • 04:08:31we'll be able to sort of grab and collate these things and
  • 04:08:35talk about what it is that we saw from the.
  • 04:08:38Obviously we'll see the comments, but we'll sort of collate them all together, et cetera.
  • 04:08:41And so that becomes really useful feedback for us as well.
  • 04:08:45Okay. And so I believe the next slide
  • 04:08:49is my last substantive slot. Here we go.
  • 04:08:53And so didn't want to lose our shovel theme.
  • 04:08:57But yes, the framework is not a done deal. It's under construction,
  • 04:09:01if you will. We're considering it and obviously, as we just said,
  • 04:09:04we're going to consider your feedback and how
  • 04:09:07things fit within this different context. And then obviously
  • 04:09:12we anticipate further discussion at the TAC level. I imagine there'll be
  • 04:09:16more discussion also with the board, etc. But it's how we're thinking about
  • 04:09:19it. And you know, if you've got ways to help
  • 04:09:22us think about that, we look forward to it as well. So it looks like
  • 04:09:26we have a queue, Caitlin. So I am happy to take questions
  • 04:09:30at this time. Okay.
  • 04:09:34Clayton Greer, did you want to talk about ers? Are you making a
  • 04:09:37joke?
  • 04:09:40Well, ERS is the joke, right? I mean, it didn't fit on any of
  • 04:09:44that. I just didn't know if you had gotten a chance. Keith is new,
  • 04:09:46so I didn't know if you had gotten a chance to talk to him about
  • 04:09:49ERS. Oh, I haven't. Do you want to,
  • 04:09:52Keith, is that I. I don't want. I won't do it during this.
  • 04:09:55If you want to do some offline, we can certainly talk about it.
  • 04:09:58Yeah, sure, we can. We can talk about that off.
  • 04:10:01Offline. I'm. ERS is.
  • 04:10:06It's an interesting thing, but we can definitely talk about that later for sure.
  • 04:10:10Okay. Interesting word. I won't hold
  • 04:10:13up the meeting for my own entertainment. So let's go to Eric
  • 04:10:17Schubert. Thanks, Keith, for providing your comments here.
  • 04:10:23I'm a little puzzled in one sense is that this is essentially what
  • 04:10:26we've been trying to do as a whole for the past couple decades. I mean
  • 04:10:29you more explicitly and that's nice, but I'm not really
  • 04:10:33seeing any change in what we've been doing either
  • 04:10:37here at the commission or at the legislature for the past couple decades,
  • 04:10:41I guess. What goals are you trying to achieve here?
  • 04:10:44In particular, that aren't being done now.
  • 04:10:47So I think what you're
  • 04:10:51suggesting, and I think you're absolutely right,
  • 04:10:55is the concept of when we're talking
  • 04:10:59about the various initiatives. Right.
  • 04:11:03Again, we could pick one, RTC, PCM,
  • 04:11:06whatever it is. Right. What is it doing?
  • 04:11:09Right. And I think that one of the things we're seeing is
  • 04:11:13we get all wrapped up in some of
  • 04:11:17the discussion about a particular item.
  • 04:11:21Right. And so it's sort of like you've got a forest.
  • 04:11:25Talk about the trees. Right. And so we talk about the trees a lot.
  • 04:11:29And what the framework helps us think about is how does the tree
  • 04:11:33fit within that forest? Right. And what kind of forest do you
  • 04:11:37want? Right. Do you want a forest with fruit? Do you
  • 04:11:41want a forest with shade? Do you want a forest with color? And sort
  • 04:11:44of help remind yourselves what it is.
  • 04:11:47And, you know, at the high level, the policymakers,
  • 04:11:51the decision makers and everybody sort of align in that we do have some new
  • 04:11:55faces. Obviously, the board is a little bit different
  • 04:11:58as well. At the legislature, they get people that come and go.
  • 04:12:02And so it's also a great communication tool to help folks at
  • 04:12:05all levels understand what it is that we're trying to achieve. So that's what we
  • 04:12:09see. It's not creating a brand new framework and saying,
  • 04:12:13hey, what we've been doing for the last couple decades doesn't
  • 04:12:17matter. It's. It's bringing that more to light and help us see
  • 04:12:22collectively, and that includes all of them. How,
  • 04:12:25how that fits together. That's. That's the goal. Well, that clarifies it.
  • 04:12:29Good. I just. It's just that generally when the proposals come up, these kind of
  • 04:12:33things come as part of the conversation in various forums. So what you're talking
  • 04:12:37about is just putting a kind of a framework on what's been happening.
  • 04:12:40Wow. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I think, I think you're right.
  • 04:12:43I mean, when we think about reliability, we should. We're always thinking about reliability,
  • 04:12:46but it's putting that framework around it. But it may be highlighting a
  • 04:12:50few other things as well, given the fact that, hey, look at all the solar
  • 04:12:54that we have. And look at that ramp at the end of the day.
  • 04:12:57Right. We haven't had that ramp at the end of the day until recently.
  • 04:13:01Right. And so, you know, so when you start thinking about
  • 04:13:04rampability and dispatchability, maybe that's higher up in your
  • 04:13:08sort of thought processes. So.
  • 04:13:12Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. All right,
  • 04:13:15next, I guess Ned.
  • 04:13:20Yep. Go ahead, dad.
  • 04:13:24Thanks, Keith. And I'll join You, I'll join you on video.
  • 04:13:27All right, thank you. So first of all,
  • 04:13:30thank you for presenting this and for taking feedback and
  • 04:13:34asking for feedback. I guess a one question
  • 04:13:37is, you know, how you would like that submitted to TAC?
  • 04:13:41Is it just something to, you know, submit to stakeholder
  • 04:13:46services for posting, you know, for the next TAC
  • 04:13:50agenda and what timeframe you're looking for that?
  • 04:13:54And then, so that's, that's maybe a procedural question. And then the
  • 04:13:57second question is, you know, as we're thinking about the broader
  • 04:14:01framework, and I appreciate that you're, you're trying to give it the very
  • 04:14:06approachable framework for the holistic picture,
  • 04:14:09but what exactly, how would you characterize
  • 04:14:13the overall objective? Because if I'm thinking about it,
  • 04:14:16we have a market that is designed
  • 04:14:20to dig a hole and we're
  • 04:14:23actually trying to scaffold our way to building something that
  • 04:14:28helps us get out of a hole, at least from a resource adequacy standpoint.
  • 04:14:31And you know, and I'm not shy to
  • 04:14:35say, I do think that, you know, real time co optimization for all of its,
  • 04:14:38all of its efficiencies actually digs us deeper in that hole.
  • 04:14:43And so, you know, that's, that's where we're starting from.
  • 04:14:46That's where we're digging deeper. And how do we, how do we dig out?
  • 04:14:49But if you've got a different framework or framing of the objective,
  • 04:14:53I would appreciate hearing it. Well, and I think that,
  • 04:14:56I think you. Well, there's sort of multiparts. I'll start with the last one and
  • 04:15:00I'll move, move backwards. So I think your,
  • 04:15:03your point on RTC is RTC is
  • 04:15:07not a resource adequacy tool. Right. And so when you think of the framework,
  • 04:15:11it's like, yeah, it's not designed to do that. Right. It's an efficiency
  • 04:15:15tool and it's an excellent efficiency tool. Right. And so you have to
  • 04:15:19put it in the framework where it makes sense. But I think as you correctly
  • 04:15:22said, it's like, okay, we're being super efficient here. That's really great.
  • 04:15:27However, we've got other buckets that we need
  • 04:15:30to fill. We can't just call it a day and say, yep, we're super efficient,
  • 04:15:33end of day. No, we've got to address
  • 04:15:37our availability issues. Right? We need resources to be available when
  • 04:15:41we need them. And this efficiency thing
  • 04:15:45is great, but it's not solving that problem. Again,
  • 04:15:49as I think about the framework, it's, yeah, you grabbed your rake
  • 04:15:52and you raked up the leaves, but you need to do something else
  • 04:15:56to address the other problems that you have. So in my mind, I think it
  • 04:15:59does a great job of how we think about the
  • 04:16:03different initiatives we have. It's achieving an objective
  • 04:16:07and it's doing that very effectively. There are other tools that we
  • 04:16:10need to think about that do other things, like PCM.
  • 04:16:13It does other things. That's what it's designed to do.
  • 04:16:18It can have efficiencies in it, but it's not primarily
  • 04:16:21a tool to create an efficient market. PCM that is.
  • 04:16:25Right. It's designed to focus on something else,
  • 04:16:28whereas RTC is. Exactly. It's not a resource efficacy tool,
  • 04:16:33it's efficiency tool. So that's how I like the framework.
  • 04:16:37It helps me think of that. And based on some
  • 04:16:41conversations with some policymakers and decision makers,
  • 04:16:44having something like that may help them as well as well.
  • 04:16:47Okay, and so now your question is,
  • 04:16:50well, what about the mechanics of, you know, hey, what's the timeline?
  • 04:16:54And so I think Ann's the better person to say, you know,
  • 04:16:58hey, send it in this way or that way. But I think the timeline is.
  • 04:17:01It would be nice if we can get your comments in by the
  • 04:17:04next. By the next hack meeting in a few weeks, because I
  • 04:17:08understand December kind of off. Right. So as long as we can
  • 04:17:12have your comments by the next meeting and then we
  • 04:17:16can definitely collate everything and have that, you know,
  • 04:17:20be at a better place at the beginning of the year, seeing that there's no
  • 04:17:23December meeting. So I think from my perspective, that works
  • 04:17:26really well. But Ann, can you speak to the mechanics?
  • 04:17:30Let me jump in really quick. Yep.
  • 04:17:33Yeah. Is there a urgency to
  • 04:17:37this? Because we are kind of building up the amount
  • 04:17:40of revision requests we're trying to get through November TAC,
  • 04:17:44and I know people will have to write comments for those.
  • 04:17:46So could we put this off into discussion at January
  • 04:17:50TAC or is that we. We can do
  • 04:17:54that. I mean, this is, you know, it's at the will of you guys.
  • 04:17:57I think it's. It's your ability to inform us in our
  • 04:18:00process. So is it necessary to have it done by the next. No,
  • 04:18:05but I suppose there is no December, so we'd
  • 04:18:08have to. If you get it as I suppose if you get it to us
  • 04:18:12in December, we can have some. Something ready to say
  • 04:18:15in January rather than, oh, we have all your comments. We don't have anything to
  • 04:18:19say. If you can get your comments in
  • 04:18:23by, let's say, mid December, then we can have a discussion
  • 04:18:27in January. Yep. The next. We just have
  • 04:18:30a compressed timeline. We only have three weeks between this TAC and
  • 04:18:34November TAC. And I know we have three revision
  • 04:18:38requests we've talked about today where folks are probably going to want
  • 04:18:42or need to write and digest comments. So I
  • 04:18:45was wondering if this could go to January. Yeah,
  • 04:18:49yeah, yeah, we can have. Yeah, we can. As long as we get our comments
  • 04:18:52in this year, we can have the conversation
  • 04:18:56in January based on the feedback. I think that works. Okay.
  • 04:18:59Okay. But I think there was a question for Ann. Still there, right?
  • 04:19:03Yes, yes. Sort of the mechanics of this.
  • 04:19:06Yeah, this is Ann, where to send the comments?
  • 04:19:09I guess if we're posting them to the meeting page.
  • 04:19:14If you just want to send them to revision request box that we can compile
  • 04:19:18them, make sure they get on. On the. They get with the
  • 04:19:21January TAC documents.
  • 04:19:25Okay, sounds good. Thank you for that. Thank you both. Yeah. And then we can
  • 04:19:28send a reminder out to the TAC exploder exactly where
  • 04:19:31everything needs to go. Okay,
  • 04:19:35thank you. Thank you. All right,
  • 04:19:39thanks, dad. And thanks for, thanks for the camera we got. I believe Brian's up
  • 04:19:42next there.
  • 04:19:50I like your framework. I agree with the
  • 04:19:54goals. I think the overall objective is to
  • 04:19:58implement a market design that achieves the reliability
  • 04:20:02standards the commission has recently adopted.
  • 04:20:05And while we're
  • 04:20:09waiting on the framework, it also feels like the
  • 04:20:13market is making other choices that might be moving us
  • 04:20:17closer or further away from that long term goal.
  • 04:20:21And I just wonder how we should be
  • 04:20:25evaluating what those choices are,
  • 04:20:28if there's even a measuring stick to know for moving
  • 04:20:32further or closer to the goal as we're sort of making interim steps
  • 04:20:35to this kind of more
  • 04:20:40efficient outcome.
  • 04:20:44Do you have any thoughts on how we should be kind of measuring
  • 04:20:48stuff in the interim? Well,
  • 04:20:52I think, I think, I think Ned did a good job earlier.
  • 04:20:55Right. So as we start thinking about the different tools that we have and what
  • 04:20:59they achieve. Right. So you RTC is a good example of
  • 04:21:02efficiency enhancing tools. Right.
  • 04:21:06And so when we look to our, hey, what's our,
  • 04:21:09you know, what's the tool that's trying to achieve our
  • 04:21:15objectives of, hey, we need resources available, we need some
  • 04:21:19mechanism that achieves that resource adequacy. What is it?
  • 04:21:22Is it PCM? If it's not PCM, what is it? Right.
  • 04:21:25And how do we ensure that we have something like that? And so from
  • 04:21:29my perspective, from a design, someone who's sort of
  • 04:21:32here to help lead design, I think
  • 04:21:36that's something that we definitely want to point out. And having that framework helps us
  • 04:21:40say, hey, there's a gap here.
  • 04:21:44And if PCM Is your tool. Great. If PCM
  • 04:21:48is not your tool, okay, you still have a gap. All right.
  • 04:21:52And we have to know, particularly at the policy,
  • 04:21:56that the policy level, folks, is like, okay, if this
  • 04:22:00isn't your tool, all right, we need something to fill this bucket.
  • 04:22:04Right, because it's empty. And so
  • 04:22:09I think that's what you're getting at. And from my perspective, that's where I think
  • 04:22:12the framework can help, is to show that very
  • 04:22:16clearly and say, this is the hole that you have. We need something to
  • 04:22:20fill this hole. Right. So I
  • 04:22:23think you're right. It feels like you're
  • 04:22:27trying to do some education here,
  • 04:22:31but on slide 6, it also feels like
  • 04:22:34political feasibility is one
  • 04:22:37of the attributes that needs to be scored,
  • 04:22:41and that probably helps with what's
  • 04:22:46possible. Sure. Yeah,
  • 04:22:49those are my comments. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
  • 04:22:54All right. I don't know who's. Who's next, but maybe
  • 04:22:59Caitlin can help me there. Yeah, it's Mark Dreyfus.
  • 04:23:03Oh, it's Mark. Okay,
  • 04:23:11can you guys hear me now? Yes.
  • 04:23:15Yeah, sorry. Having connectivity problems today,
  • 04:23:19so you certainly won't be seeing me on camera.
  • 04:23:22I want to thank you, Keith, for bringing this forward. I think this can
  • 04:23:26be helpful, especially when working
  • 04:23:30with decision makers who are not as intimate with
  • 04:23:35the objectives of what we do every day and why
  • 04:23:39we made these decisions 20 something years ago to
  • 04:23:43operate a market like this. But when I look at
  • 04:23:47your list of attributes on page
  • 04:23:51six, I think there is a key attribute that
  • 04:23:54is missing as a standalone attribute, and that is
  • 04:23:58consumer cost.
  • 04:24:02You know, when I look at this list, I see five or six different
  • 04:24:05ways of characterizing reliability attributes.
  • 04:24:08Use, and then efficiency is doing
  • 04:24:12a lot of work. And while consumer costs and
  • 04:24:16affordability are often aligned with efficiency,
  • 04:24:19that is not only the always the case. And we've seen
  • 04:24:23significant examples of that here. I think when we make
  • 04:24:27deviations from efficient markets, like some would argue with conservative
  • 04:24:31operations, they were making trade offs that involve consumer
  • 04:24:35costs that are not necessarily aligned with efficiency. And I
  • 04:24:38also think we do a lot of cost allocation here
  • 04:24:42that is separate from efficiency, that directly affects
  • 04:24:47consumer costs. So I think if we're going to find this
  • 04:24:50to be a useful tool for working with decision
  • 04:24:54makers who want to look at all aspects of
  • 04:24:57what it is we're trying to accomplish, we should call out
  • 04:25:01a separate attribute for consumer costs. That's it.
  • 04:25:04Thanks. Okay, well, we definitely look forward to seeing that in your comments,
  • 04:25:08so thank you. I will provide comments,
  • 04:25:11but that's my comment. All right, thank you. Appreciate it.
  • 04:25:19All right, I believe we got. Is it Eric Schubert? I think
  • 04:25:23yes. I want to con first I want to concur with Mark's comment on affordability.
  • 04:25:28That's a very important thing. That's one of the big drivers why we had a
  • 04:25:31market. If you look at other places around the country where
  • 04:25:35you have cost of service regulation, you see the difference
  • 04:25:38in terms of prices, particularly if you're industrial customer and you need a good
  • 04:25:42wholesale and reliable wholesale market to back up retail choice.
  • 04:25:46The other thing I want to say is the concern I have here with some
  • 04:25:49of the comments this follows up a little bit with Ned has talked about is
  • 04:25:54that markets evolve. I wouldn't
  • 04:25:58characterize as he has that we've dug ourselves a hole. We are moving into a
  • 04:26:02different territory. We have far more intermittent
  • 04:26:05renewables, we have storage technology changes
  • 04:26:09and we have been pushing for the past couple decades to
  • 04:26:12make sure that we can accommodate the technology.
  • 04:26:15And so I think we've got to be careful about
  • 04:26:19trying to over engineer when the market as a
  • 04:26:23very dynamic system will self correct to a degree.
  • 04:26:26You see the ramp with solar for example. Now storage is filling
  • 04:26:30that gap. So this is a
  • 04:26:34nice framework for talking to people who have to understand what the concerns
  • 04:26:37are for ERCOT operations. Right? Make sure that
  • 04:26:42the lights stay on and it's done efficiently and that
  • 04:26:45you feel comfortable with the results. But you also have to make
  • 04:26:49sure that you don't over engineer in the sense that today's solutions or
  • 04:26:52what appears to seem to work won't
  • 04:26:57really be there tomorrow. And I'll give you an example. Sorry to become
  • 04:27:00virtual, but the PJM forward capacity market RPM
  • 04:27:0420 years ago it was talked about that we need to have this. Because markets
  • 04:27:08don't work, you can't fill the gap. Right? Well,
  • 04:27:11we went a different direction and you know, we've, we've, we've tweaked
  • 04:27:14ancillary service on top of that and so forth. But it has accommodated
  • 04:27:19the new technologies because the market came in and filled that in. They are
  • 04:27:23struggling mightily up north with the very core things that
  • 04:27:26we're addressing because they, they tried to find too
  • 04:27:29many solutions definitively rather than providing the right incentives
  • 04:27:34for the market to fill that in. So you have to keep in mind when
  • 04:27:37you talk, when we talk about this, the balance between engineering
  • 04:27:41things, we may need more. For example, you need ECRs, right? You need a ramping
  • 04:27:45product. Understood. You may need more
  • 04:27:49or less. Anton Spin but
  • 04:27:52don't put overly cons, don't overly
  • 04:27:56constrain the market with engineering Solutions that seem to work now that
  • 04:27:59might be corrected by the market more efficiently and provide
  • 04:28:03people with a wider range of services and, and products
  • 04:28:07than they would have otherwise. So be
  • 04:28:10modest in terms of what this can do. This is a great teaching tool and
  • 04:28:14a great thinking tool when we talk about it. So I've said my piece.
  • 04:28:18Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you,
  • 04:28:21Brian. I think it's Eric Goff.
  • 04:28:25Howdy. So I said a lot at
  • 04:28:28WMS, so I won't repeat myself because you were there and I think other people
  • 04:28:31there too. I also think I've got a start video
  • 04:28:35button, so let me just push that. All right.
  • 04:28:39But I do want to
  • 04:28:42try to move past metaphors and analogies as
  • 04:28:46we get into ancillary services, especially, you know,
  • 04:28:50as we're considering what we do about the market and
  • 04:28:54answering services. They're certainly useful to help
  • 04:28:58understand things. But I'm just going to give a quick, silly example of
  • 04:29:01how sometimes they can be not useful. So in the digging a
  • 04:29:05hole metaphor, you know, sometimes you dig a
  • 04:29:08hole to get oil and a more efficient way
  • 04:29:12to get more oil is to keep digging or to dig sideways.
  • 04:29:15And that's not helpful analogy,
  • 04:29:19but it's a metaphor I can use to say,
  • 04:29:22oh, in a more efficient way to dig is going to get to resource adequacy.
  • 04:29:27So all that aside isn't to criticize but
  • 04:29:31to say I'd really like to get to like the core reasons
  • 04:29:35why we need to do things and then come up with the most cost
  • 04:29:39effective or efficient way to do those things.
  • 04:29:43And so we don't necessarily
  • 04:29:46need to buy a 10 minute reserve service for
  • 04:29:49something we know about days in advance. When we know about it days
  • 04:29:52in advance, it might be cheaper to procure something that takes a lot of lead
  • 04:29:56time and you still solve the underlying resource adequacy problem.
  • 04:30:02So I'm looking forward to filing comments, but I'd really like to
  • 04:30:06get to what it is we're trying to accomplish
  • 04:30:11more specifically. But this is a great starting point
  • 04:30:15and we can dig deeper.
  • 04:30:19Dig deeper. There you go.
  • 04:30:22All right, thank you, Eric. I appreciate it as well. So thank you. Thank you.
  • 04:30:25I mean that's, this is the discussion I was hoping to get right, some good
  • 04:30:29thoughts and feedback and dialogue. And so I hope
  • 04:30:32to, I hope to capture that in your comments as well. It sounds like we're
  • 04:30:35going to get some good comments and yeah, I'd imagine some
  • 04:30:39tweaking, but as Eric just said is we're going to move from the,
  • 04:30:43you know, framework high level stage. And we're going to start
  • 04:30:47looking at, looking at this and more applied
  • 04:30:51if you will, in terms of where are we,
  • 04:30:55what initiatives do we have, what things do
  • 04:30:59they do or not do? Right. And I
  • 04:31:02think that'll help us. And I understand there's a legislative
  • 04:31:06session coming up and there's gonna be a lot of discussion
  • 04:31:10about, you know, what do we need to do. So anyway,
  • 04:31:15so this is, this is a good start here. I think this is great.
  • 04:31:17I appreciate the feedback and look forward to your comments. So I'll hand
  • 04:31:21it back to you, Caitlin. Thank you.
  • 04:31:29Okay, thanks Keith. So we will plan
  • 04:31:33to. Ann, are you going to send out a notice you said
  • 04:31:36for comments, maybe reminding people after the November TAC?
  • 04:31:40Or we can remind people at the November TAC and have
  • 04:31:43these due sometime before the holidays in December
  • 04:31:48and then take it up at January TAC.
  • 04:31:53Yeah, we can send out an email with each
  • 04:31:57presentation attached and then remind people where to send their comments
  • 04:32:02prior to the next. Yeah. All right,
  • 04:32:07so let's move on to the
  • 04:32:11large load interconnection status update. As Eric Flakey mentioned,
  • 04:32:15we have moved this to TAC
  • 04:32:19from WMS.
  • 04:32:28Good afternoon everyone. Can you guys hear me?
  • 04:32:36Yes, yes I can. Great.
  • 04:32:40Well I'll get started here as I know the agenda has been pretty full today.
  • Clip 15.4 - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Chris Cosway
    04:32:44 My name is Chris Causeway, I am an engineer on the large load integration
  • 04:32:47team at ERCOT and I'll be presenting the Q status
  • 04:32:51update for you guys today. So looking at this first
  • 04:32:55slide here, over the past 12 months we've seen a lot of standalone
  • 04:32:59project requests coming in. This can be seen the graph. You know, every month
  • 04:33:03there's significant increases. There are increases
  • 04:33:07in this co located projects but not as much as we're seeing
  • 04:33:11for the standalone growth. So changes since
  • 04:33:14last September we've seen a combination of new standalone co located
  • 04:33:18projects. There's been a few project cancellations but overall
  • 04:33:23the Q has increased by a little over 5 gigawatts.
  • 04:33:27Next slide please.
  • 04:33:33So looking at the large load interconnection queue,
  • 04:33:35the graph on the left shows the in service states
  • 04:33:39and the load megawatts. And this is a projection
  • 04:33:43based on the requested megawatt we are receiving for projects
  • 04:33:47and they're in service dates. Most of these years we're
  • 04:33:51seeing 10 plus gigawatts between 2024 and
  • 04:33:542027 and most recently 2027, 2028. What we're
  • 04:33:58seeing is nearly 13 gigawatts of growth.
  • 04:34:02So a lot of project requests coming in and
  • 04:34:06majority of these megawatts are under aircraft review.
  • 04:34:10So what this means is we're working with the TSPS to
  • 04:34:14review their studies to either approve or,
  • 04:34:17you know, find solutions of how we can limit
  • 04:34:20their projects and get some type of megawatts for them.
  • 04:34:24Next slide please.
  • 04:34:29So for aircraft approvals over the past 12 months we
  • 04:34:32can see this month there's been significant increase in
  • 04:34:36the approved or the planning studies approved.
  • 04:34:40And since October total load with planning studies approved increased.
  • 04:34:44This past month there was a slight decrease in
  • 04:34:48the middle half of this year, but we're seeing a
  • 04:34:52increase. So the next couple months this should continue
  • 04:34:55to increase. And over the past year about 1771
  • 04:34:59megawatts load has been approved to energize.
  • 04:35:03Next slide.
  • 04:35:07Looking at loads approved to energize by zone
  • 04:35:10and project type of a total of 5,697 megawatts
  • 04:35:14approved to energize, 3,055 megawatts resides
  • 04:35:18in load zone west and
  • 04:35:212,642 megawatts resides in other load zones.
  • 04:35:25This is shown in the bottom left graph here. Load zone
  • 04:35:28west on the left and the all other load zones aggregated
  • 04:35:32is on the right and on the right graph.
  • 04:35:364622 megawatts consists of standalone
  • 04:35:40projects and 1075 megawatts consists
  • 04:35:43of co located projects. As we saw a trend earlier,
  • 04:35:47we do have more standalone projects in the queue and
  • 04:35:51more approved or non simultaneous
  • 04:35:54peak load that we're seeing a little over double and
  • 04:35:58remaining improved energized load. They're significantly more in standalone just based
  • 04:36:02on the queue size and requests coming in for standalone projects.
  • 04:36:05Next slide please.
  • 04:36:12So some more observations for loads approved to energize.5,697
  • 04:36:18megawatts that have received approval to energize, ERCOT has reserved
  • 04:36:22a non simultaneous peak consumption of a little over
  • 04:36:253,500 megawatts. And this is calculated based
  • 04:36:29on the maximum value for each individual load regardless of when
  • 04:36:33that occurred in time. And this value represents how
  • 04:36:36much approved load ERCOT believes is now operational. And looking
  • 04:36:40at the graph based on the observed non simultaneous peak load which
  • 04:36:43is in blue, we can see that steadily increasing every
  • 04:36:47month. And the remaining approved to energize load has
  • 04:36:51stayed relatively consistent compared to the increase
  • 04:36:55in non simultaneous peak load. Next slide.
  • 04:37:03So some more observations. ERCOT has observed a simultaneous
  • 04:37:07peak consumption of 2,815 megawatts.
  • 04:37:11So this is the maximum value, the sum of all individual
  • 04:37:14loads. This value is the maximum amount of load
  • 04:37:18that ERCOT has seen at a single point in time or served
  • 04:37:21at a single point in time. And looking at the graph
  • 04:37:25in the green is the observed simultaneous peak load.
  • 04:37:28This is increasing. It's a little bit slower than the
  • 04:37:32non simultaneous peak load, but it still is increasing. And then
  • 04:37:35the remaining approved energized load has been relatively
  • 04:37:38consistent over the past few months.
  • 04:37:42Next slide please.
  • 04:37:46So as I said, I've tried to keep that brief for you guys. If there
  • 04:37:49are any questions, feel free to email the large zone connectionercot.com
  • 04:37:55and if there are any questions right now, feel free to ask those.
  • 04:38:02Okay, if the question from Evan Neal,
  • 04:38:08everybody. Can I get a confirmation you can hear me?
  • 04:38:10Yes, we can. All right, thank you. This is Evan Neal with Lanciam.
  • 04:38:14So Chris, quick question on your simultaneous and non simultaneous
  • 04:38:18peak consumption values. So I see that the non simultaneous
  • 04:38:22value has been increasing pretty steadily over the past three months, but for the past
  • 04:38:26three months the simultaneous value has stayed the same. Rally around that 2,800
  • 04:38:30number. Could ERCOT comment at all? If we've seen some of these
  • 04:38:33loads that have come online reduce their consumption since originally coming
  • 04:38:37on as that's kind of what I would think those numbers would indicate.
  • 04:38:41You know, that's a good point, Evan. I cannot comment on any specifics
  • 04:38:45of that, but based on our data, and we do believe it to
  • 04:38:48be accurate, that could be an assumption of
  • 04:38:52what is happening. This could likely increase in
  • 04:38:55the near future. But based on, you know, lower, lower load on
  • 04:38:59certain projects, that could be why we're seeing similar numbers.
  • 04:39:03Okay, thanks. Would, would ERCOT consider possibly presenting values
  • 04:39:07for simultaneous peak consumption on a monthly basis
  • 04:39:10rather than an all time peak consumption value?
  • 04:39:15That's something I'd have to talk internally with my team.
  • 04:39:18I mean we do want to keep, you know, confidentiality projects.
  • 04:39:23So we don't want to give two granular information that could,
  • 04:39:27you know, you could infer what projects and their associated megawatts.
  • 04:39:31So I'll talk with my team and I'll get back to you. If we can
  • 04:39:34update or provide a new chart that could provide more specifics
  • 04:39:37on that. Okay, thank you.
  • 04:39:49Any other questions?
  • 04:39:54Okay. All right, thank you everyone.
  • 04:39:57I appreciate your time. Thank you.
  • Clip 16 - Other Business
    04:40:01 We are on to other
  • 04:40:05business. It is membership
  • 04:40:09segment elections time. Susie, do you have an update for
  • 04:40:12us or information? Yes, just a reminder.
  • Clip 16.1 - 2025 ERCOT Membership / Segment Representative Elections - Suzy Clifton
    04:40:16 The date of record is this coming Friday. I'm sure since we've
  • 04:40:20been talking about this September, everybody's got all their membership application
  • 04:40:24and fees in and taken care of and the election process will start
  • 04:40:28this coming Tuesday, November 5th.
  • 04:40:32So I just wanted to send that reminder. And notices have been sent
  • 04:40:35to the individual segments for the election. So you should have seen that
  • 04:40:38on Monday. And then we will send out the election notice as it starts
  • 04:40:42on Tuesday, November 5th. Are there any questions for that?
  • 04:40:49All right, thank you all very much.
  • Clip 16.2 - TAC Procedure Improvements - Caitlin Smith
    04:40:54 All right, the TAC procedure improvement.
  • 04:40:59This is me. I'm probably going to ask Corey to weigh in.
  • 04:41:02This is a conversation we had during November
  • 04:41:06two where we,
  • 04:41:09you know, as that progressed and we were considering it at TAC,
  • 04:41:15instead of kind of a consolidated red
  • 04:41:18line, our process turns out the red line where
  • 04:41:23each author shows. So you could have, you know, 20 different
  • 04:41:27colors on something like NOGRR245.
  • 04:41:29And so we had talked about the idea of having a
  • 04:41:33consolidated version so it would be not
  • 04:41:37a black line. So you wouldn't,
  • 04:41:40you know, hitting View final version doesn't. Doesn't help you.
  • 04:41:43We'd want to see what was changed, but see it in kind of a consolidated
  • 04:41:47manner. And I think the proposal
  • 04:41:51Corey and I had been working on would kind of leave it up to either
  • 04:41:55check as a body or track leadership discretion whether we would want
  • 04:41:59that kind of consolidated version when we're discussing the TAC
  • 04:42:03easier to read and understand. Also in the case of
  • 04:42:06something like 245, easier for market roles to
  • 04:42:10process, you know, we. They were getting
  • 04:42:14comments and then it would take many hours of process
  • 04:42:18time for them. So kind of having to work overnight,
  • 04:42:21I'm sure, during 2:45. So that was
  • 04:42:25an idea we had there. Corey, am I leaving anything out?
  • 04:42:31Nope, I think you got it. For those, for those of you that live through
  • 04:42:34NOGRR245, you'll recall one of the many TAC
  • 04:42:37meetings it was brought up that, you know, it had turned into a kaleidoscope
  • 04:42:41of very difficult to read language. And so it was
  • 04:42:45suggested, hey, wouldn't a consolidated version be better? And we were really
  • 04:42:48only constricted by the existing Section 21
  • 04:42:52language that mandates that you have to maintain the.
  • 04:42:56The identification of authorship of comment. So that's
  • 04:43:00what Caitlin and I have been kicking around as softening this language
  • 04:43:03to allow, you know, the option
  • 04:43:07not to say we would take it away, but just the option to allow TAC
  • 04:43:11leadership or, you know, an action of TAC to consolidate
  • 04:43:15the authorship so that in the example of NOGRR245, all of those
  • 04:43:19red lines would have netted out to say, here's the black baseline and
  • 04:43:23then here's red lines authored as it raw or authored as TAC,
  • 04:43:26depending on which level we were at just so you could see what's
  • 04:43:30old, what's new. You would still have the history, all the posted documents would
  • 04:43:34still be there as key documents to see who filed what the
  • 04:43:37preceding level of report. Like the example
  • 04:43:41of NOGRR245, the roster report would still be rainbow colored,
  • 04:43:45but it's just one that got to the TAC level and we were pushing it
  • 04:43:48onto the board and folks needed to file comments to the board and turn them
  • 04:43:51around quickly. Having that consolidated version would have been a heck
  • 04:43:55of a lot cleaner and easier for everyone. So again, it would just be a
  • 04:44:00use once in a hundred times hopefully. But it would be the optionality
  • 04:44:05is what we would be looking to add in to give TAC leadership
  • 04:44:09or TAC as a whole the ability to say that Consolidated
  • 04:44:13Authorship is the Approved version for NOGRR245.
  • 04:44:16We ended up with this sort of Cliff Notes version that folks
  • 04:44:20would look at but then have to flip back to the Kaleidoscope to make their
  • 04:44:23formal comments or they submitted their formal comments on
  • 04:44:27the cleaned up version and we then had to port it over to the Kaleidoscope
  • 04:44:31to make it official and then get them to review it all again. So again,
  • 04:44:34just lessons learned from Nova 245, which I'm sure will never happen again.
  • 04:44:38We'll be in total support of each other on future revision requests,
  • 04:44:41but should that happen again, this is the kind of change that
  • 04:44:44would be a very small one in terms of redlining, but could have a
  • 04:44:48big impact on everyone's shots when it's time to file comments.
  • 04:44:55Okay, any feedback
  • 04:44:59here? Richard says language
  • 04:45:03doesn't prohibit it.
  • 04:45:11So I think,
  • 04:45:15let me. Richard, Richard, do you want to say your comment and then we'll see
  • 04:45:17if Corey can address it?
  • 04:45:20I'm. My thought, if I understood it right,
  • 04:45:24was there's nothing that prohibits. You're going
  • 04:45:27to have the recommendation report that has, that preserves everybody's comments.
  • 04:45:32It's there and there's nothing that
  • 04:45:35says when you send the TAC report out it can't
  • 04:45:38be a, a single red line adopted by TAC because
  • 04:45:42at that point TAC has adopted and,
  • 04:45:45and taken,
  • 04:45:50I don't know what the right word they have. They have taken and making their
  • 04:45:53own all the comments.
  • 04:45:57And if somebody wants to see that individual red line, they can still go back.
  • 04:46:00But I don't care if you change it too in
  • 04:46:04my engineering non legal opinion.
  • 04:46:12Caitlyn, this is Ann. I don't mean.
  • 04:46:16Hello. Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
  • 04:46:19Yeah, I don't, I don't think that Was the intention when this is written,
  • 04:46:23can't take it back and look at it. And if we have to revise section
  • 04:46:2621, then we'll do that. And, you know,
  • 04:46:29TAP can discuss it when the NPRR comes out as well.
  • 04:46:36Okay. All right. Any other questions
  • 04:46:39or comments?
  • 04:46:43Okay, so Corey and I will keep working on that and,
  • 04:46:48you know, you'll see an NPRR.
  • Clip 17 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith
    04:46:52 All right, we are ready, finally ready for the combo ballot.
  • 04:46:57There is a lot on it today. Do we have a motion and
  • 04:47:01a second for the combo ballot? All the voting items are
  • 04:47:05on screen.
  • 04:47:07Sure. This Bob. Okay,
  • 04:47:11motion from Bob. Bob Hilton, second from David
  • 04:47:15Key.
  • 04:47:23Okay, whenever you're ready, Corey.
  • 04:47:27All right, keep the party rolling on the motion
  • 04:47:31to approve the combo ballot. We will start up with the consumers with Eric
  • 04:47:35Goff. Yes, thank you.
  • 04:47:38Navajo. Yes, thank you,
  • 04:47:41Garrett.
  • 04:47:52Got you in chat. Garrett. Thank you. Eric Schubert.
  • 04:47:56Yes, thank you, sir. Mark Dreyfus.
  • 04:48:01Yes, thank you. Thank you,
  • 04:48:04Nick. Yes, thank you.
  • 04:48:08On your co-ops, Mike had to leave us, but he passed
  • 04:48:11his vote to Blake. So Blake for Mike and then Blake for yourself.
  • 04:48:26I think we lose Blake too.
  • 04:48:32I'll loop back to him. How about Eric Blakey? Yes, thank you.
  • 04:48:37Thanks, sir. John Packard. Yes, thank you.
  • 04:48:41Thank you. On to our independent generators.
  • 04:48:43Brian.
  • 04:48:46Yes.
  • 04:48:53I'm sorry, Brian, I thought you come off mute, but I didn't get the vote.
  • 04:49:00Got your yes in the chat. Thanks there, Caitlyn.
  • 04:49:04Yes, thank you. Bob Helton.
  • 04:49:11Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Ned?
  • 04:49:15Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you, sir. On to
  • 04:49:19the ipms. Right. For me. Yes, thank you.
  • 04:49:22Thank you, Jeremy. Yep, thank you.
  • 04:49:25Thank you. Ian.
  • 04:49:37Ian, you still with us?
  • 04:49:43Okay, got you in chat, Ian and Blake, thank you. I've got you and Mike,
  • 04:49:46so those yeses in the chat, thank you.
  • 04:49:50And back to our IPMs. Matt. Yes,
  • 04:49:54thank you. On to our IREP Bill.
  • 04:49:58Yes. And then Bill for Jennifer.
  • 04:50:03Yes, thank you.
  • 04:50:08Jake. Yes, thank you.
  • 04:50:11Thank you. Chris? Yes,
  • 04:50:14thank you. Andre. IOUs. Richard?
  • 04:50:18Yes, thank you. David?
  • 04:50:23Yes, thank you. Colin? Yes,
  • 04:50:27thank you. And Rob for Keith.
  • 04:50:30Yes, thank you, sir. On to
  • 04:50:33the munis. Curtis for Ruffle. Yes,
  • 04:50:36thank you. Joseph?
  • 04:50:40Yes, thank you.
  • 04:50:43David. Yes, thank you, Corey. Thanks,
  • 04:50:46sir. Annalicia? Yes, thank you.
  • 04:50:50Thank you. Motion carries unanimously.
  • 04:50:54Thank you.
  • 04:51:04Okay, thank you, Corey.
  • 04:51:10All right, anything else before we end the party?
  • 04:51:18Party is over. Go home. Okay,
  • 04:51:21somebody bring cookies to November TAC.
  • Clip 18 - Adjourn
    04:51:26 Thank you, everybody. I We will see you in person
  • 04:51:29in November.
Agenda_tac_20241030_final_rev1
Oct 23, 2024 - doc - 127 KB
2024 TAC NPRR1190 Ballot 20241030
Oct 29, 2024 - xls - 112 KB
2-draft-minutes-tac-20240919
Oct 23, 2024 - docx - 130.5 KB
2024 TAC Combined Ballot 20241030
Oct 29, 2024 - xls - 114 KB
2-draft-minutes-tac-20240919v2
Oct 26, 2024 - docx - 130.5 KB
4-nprr1190
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 478.8 KB
5-rr-summary
Oct 27, 2024 - zip - 85.7 KB
6-prs-report
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 991.8 KB
6-prs-report
Oct 27, 2024 - zip - 991.1 KB
5-rr-summary
Oct 28, 2024 - zip - 85.8 KB
6-prs-report
Oct 28, 2024 - zip - 1005.1 KB
7-rrs-tabled-at-tac
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 532 KB
8-obdrr053
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 64.1 KB
10-ros-report
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 481.4 KB
11-wms-report
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 493.2 KB
12-cfsg-report
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 168.3 KB
12-cfsg-report
Oct 28, 2024 - zip - 461.9 KB
13-rtcbtf-report
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 235.5 KB
15-ercot-reports
Oct 22, 2024 - zip - 1.8 MB
15-ercot-reports
Oct 28, 2024 - zip - 2 MB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:02:13
2 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:04:04
3 - Meeting Updates - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:04:54
3.1 - September/October Board/PUCT Meetings
Starts at 00:04:59
3.1.1 - Subcommittee Reporting to the Board
Starts at 00:05:48
3.1.2 - NOGRR245 Update
Starts at 00:07:44
4 - Board Remand of NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs - Vote
Starts at 00:11:44
4.1 - ERCOT Presentation - Austin Rosel
Starts at 00:13:23
4.2 - WMS/WMWG Discussion Summary - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:33:13
4.3 - Consumer Presentation - Consumer Presenter
Starts at 00:42:54
5 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions - Ann Boren/ IMM
Starts at 01:18:30
6 - PRS Report - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 01:23:14
6.1 - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
Starts at 01:24:31
6.2 - NPRR1245, Additional Clarifying Revisions to Real-Time Co-Optimization
Starts at 01:26:35
6.3 - NPRR1248, Correction to NPRR1197, Optional Exclusion of Load from Netting at EPS Metering Facilities which Include Resources
Starts at 01:26:38
6.4 - NPRR1249, Publication of Shift Factors for All Active Transmission Constraints in the RTM
Starts at 01:26:43
7 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 02:24:33
7.1 - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
Starts at 02:24:41
7.2 - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
Starts at 02:24:49
8 - OBDRR053, Alignment with NPRR1131, Controllable Load Resource Participation in Non-Spin, and Minor Clean-Ups - Vote - Nitika Mago
Starts at 02:24:53
9 - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever
Starts at 02:27:20
10 - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 02:28:32
10.1 - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
Starts at 02:31:52
10.2 - NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
Starts at 02:31:59
10.3 - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
Starts at 02:32:04
11 - WMS Report - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:34:04
12 - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager
Starts at 02:48:37
12.1 - Approval of CFSG Membership
Starts at 03:06:53
15 - ERCOT Reports
Starts at 03:08:00
15.1 - AEPSC Brownsville Area Improvements Transmission Project - Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam
Starts at 03:08:29
13 - RTC+B Task Force Report - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness
Starts at 03:15:35
13.1 - Endorse RTC+B Market Trials Plan
Starts at 03:25:42
14 - Update of Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 03:34:42
15.2 - Reduce per CRRAH Transaction Limit - Possible Vote - Matt Mereness
Starts at 03:37:36
15.3 - ERCOTs Framework for Evaluating Market Design - Keith Collins
Starts at 03:58:20
15.4 - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Chris Cosway
Starts at 04:32:44
16 - Other Business
Starts at 04:40:01
16.1 - 2025 ERCOT Membership / Segment Representative Elections - Suzy Clifton
Starts at 04:40:16
16.2 - TAC Procedure Improvements - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 04:40:54
17 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 04:46:52
18 - Adjourn
Starts at 04:51:26