07/11/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 1:29:26
Duration 1:52:48
Loaded: 79.41%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 23:22
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:35
    Good morning. This is Suzy Clifton with ERCOT. Could someone confirm
  • 00:00:39
    you can hear me okay? Yes,
  • 00:00:43
    we can. Good morning, Suzy. Good morning.
  • 00:00:46
    Thanks. I appreciate you all responding. Real quickly.
  • 00:00:50
    Before we get started with today's meeting, I just want to go over the
  • 00:00:53
    meeting reminders. We are using the chat function
  • 00:00:56
    to queue for motions or discussions. And please wait
  • 00:01:00
    for the chair to recognize you before you begin speaking.
  • 00:01:05
    Should the meeting or audio end for any reason, please log in
  • 00:01:09
    back using the same webex information. If there are any
  • 00:01:13
    issues with that, we will go ahead and send something to the listserv
  • Item 0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
    00:01:17
    as we begin the balloting process. Please remember to
  • 00:01:21
    unmute yourself as a voting seated representative
  • 00:01:24
    at ROS. And then after you have cast your vote,
  • 00:01:27
    please return to meet status.
  • 00:01:31
    And with that, Katie, we do have a quorum, and we're ready to get started
  • 00:01:34
    this morning. Well, thanks, Suzy. Good morning,
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
    00:01:38
    everyone. Thanks for joining us via Webex today.
  • 00:01:43
    I will let Suzy go ahead and pull
  • 00:01:47
    up the antitrust.
  • 00:01:52
    All right, so we've
  • 00:01:56
    all seen this one many, many times, so I'll give you a second to take
  • 00:01:59
    a look.
  • 00:02:07
    Okay. Then from there, we can go back to the agenda.
  • 00:02:12
    Want to go over a newly seated rep?
  • 00:02:15
    And we've got several alt reps today.
  • 00:02:18
    So Matthew spelik
  • 00:02:22
    with AEP now joins us. And then on
  • 00:02:26
    the alt rep side, Chase Smith has given
  • 00:02:29
    his alt rep to Kristen Cook. Resme has given
  • 00:02:33
    her alt rep to Shane Thomas.
  • 00:02:37
    Chris Garrity has the alt rep of rob bevel.
  • 00:02:41
    And then Iman, with awesome energy, has given her alt rep.
  • 00:02:45
    Mike Diller. Did I get everyone, Suzy?
  • 00:02:52
    Yes, Katie, you did. Okay, perfect.
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
    00:02:55
    All right, and then let's walk through the agenda today.
  • 00:02:59
    So, as usual, we have our ROS meeting minutes from last
  • 00:03:03
    month. I'll give you a quick tac update. And then we've got a
  • 00:03:07
    handful of ERCOT reports.
  • 00:03:10
    Then we'll start getting into the NOGRRs
  • 00:03:15
    and NPRRs that are needing referral
  • 00:03:19
    to one of the working groups and then the ones that came over from prs.
  • 00:03:24
    And then we will probably
  • 00:03:27
    try to pair up. Just so you know, if it seemed like
  • 00:03:30
    I was jumping around, probably try to pair up the
  • 00:03:34
    NOGRRs and the PGRRs with their. Their NPRRs just to figure
  • 00:03:38
    out where those will be going. And then
  • 00:03:41
    we've got our tabled items, and then we get into our working
  • 00:03:45
    groups. We'll have the combo ballot,
  • 00:03:49
    and then finish up with our working groups.
  • 00:03:53
    And then if there's anything other under other business, I might touch
  • 00:03:57
    on the meeting schedule briefly. And then we'll see
  • 00:04:00
    if there's anything else for the good of the group.
  • 00:04:04
    Sound good to everyone?
  • Item 3 - Meeting Minutes - Katie Rich
    00:04:08
    All right, so we
  • 00:04:12
    do have our meeting minutes from June 6 if we
  • 00:04:16
    want to pull those up.
  • Item 3.1 - June 6, 2024 - Katie Rich
    00:04:23
    All right. Is there anyone who needs to abstain
  • 00:04:28
    on these? If not, these are usually right for the combo ballot.
  • 00:04:37
    Okay, well, let's go ahead and put it on there.
  • 00:04:40
    Awesome. Thank you so much.
  • Item 4 - TAC Update - Katie Rich
    00:04:50
    Okay. And with that, I'll give you a brief tac update.
  • 00:04:53
    So they did approve our PGRR106 that we
  • 00:04:57
    took to them, and then two discussions
  • 00:05:01
    on ancillary services. Just noting that
  • 00:05:05
    the kickoff discussion of the 2025
  • 00:05:09
    as methodology will start at PDCWG
  • 00:05:13
    at their first meeting in July.
  • 00:05:17
    So make sure you tune into that, and then it will
  • 00:05:20
    come back to us for the September ROS
  • 00:05:24
    and then the PUC ancillary service study
  • 00:05:28
    update. There's going to be a TAC workshop on
  • 00:05:32
    August 28, so mark your calendars for that. You don't want to
  • 00:05:36
    miss it. And with that, I think that's.
  • 00:05:40
    Those are the highlights as they pertain to ROS.
  • Item 5 - ERCOT Reports - Katie Rich
    00:05:44
    So with that, I will go ahead and move into the ERCOT
  • Item 5.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
    00:05:48
    reports. As always, we'll start with the operations report.
  • 00:05:51
    Alex, are you ready to update us?
  • 00:05:58
    This is Alex Lee from ERCOT. Can you guys hear me okay?
  • 00:06:03
    Absolutely, go ahead. Okay. Good morning.
  • 00:06:07
    So, for the month of May, the unofficial peak
  • 00:06:11
    load was about 77, a little over
  • 00:06:14
    77 gigawatt on May 26 7th,
  • 00:06:19
    which is almost nine gigawatts more than the
  • 00:06:22
    previous year's peak demand on the state month. In May,
  • 00:06:27
    there were three frequency events. All were related to
  • 00:06:31
    the unit trips. And there was one other incidence
  • 00:06:34
    where ECRs was deployed in the month of May.
  • 00:06:39
    And this was due to installation capacity for
  • 00:06:42
    netload ramp. There was no responsive
  • 00:06:46
    users deployment events and there were nine DC
  • 00:06:49
    PI curtailment, ten h, twelve commitments.
  • 00:06:55
    There was also. At the bottom, there was one watch due
  • 00:06:58
    to reserve capacity shortage with no market solutions.
  • 00:07:02
    And there was one transmission emergency notice due
  • 00:07:06
    to the South Texas import interface. With that, I'll open
  • 00:07:10
    the floor for any questions.
  • 00:07:14
    Thanks, Alex. I will pause here to see if anyone has a question
  • 00:07:18
    for him on this month's report.
  • 00:07:23
    Okay, the queue is clear. Thank you very much.
  • Item 5.2 - System Planning Report - Robert Golen
    00:07:29
    That will take us to the system planning report, and I believe Robert
  • 00:07:33
    is filling in again this month for us.
  • 00:07:37
    Yes. Good morning. Can someone confirm you can hear me?
  • 00:07:40
    We can go ahead. Excellent. Thank you. Good morning,
  • 00:07:43
    everybody. My name is Robert Golan. I'll be going over the system
  • 00:07:47
    planning monthly status update,
  • 00:07:53
    looking at the proposed review
  • 00:07:57
    of proposed transmission projects. ERCOT is currently
  • 00:08:02
    over $2.8 billion worth of projects.
  • 00:08:06
    ERCOT has endorsed over 1.1 billion
  • 00:08:10
    in projects this year as of May 31.
  • 00:08:15
    Moving on, really just to the other notable
  • 00:08:19
    items. ERCOT continues to work on the Permian
  • 00:08:23
    Basin reliability plan study as directed by House Bill 5066.
  • 00:08:29
    And then also, ERCOT did present an update for the
  • 00:08:32
    2024 RTP large load types and generation hubs
  • 00:08:37
    at the May 2024 RPG meeting.
  • 00:08:42
    That's all I really have for the update.
  • 00:08:46
    Pause for questions.
  • 00:08:53
    Thanks, Robert. I'm not seeing anybody in the queue. Oh,
  • 00:08:56
    Prabhu, go ahead.
  • 00:09:04
    Yeah, good morning. Thank you. Can you hear me?
  • 00:09:07
    I can go ahead.
  • 00:09:13
    This. Prabhu. Niram, can you hear me?
  • 00:09:18
    Yes, sir. We can hear you just fine.
  • 00:09:28
    Yeah, Prabhu, we can hear you.
  • 00:09:53
    Hello?
  • 00:09:58
    Yeah, I'm having some audio issues. I can't hear anyone here.
  • 00:10:04
    We can hear you, Prabhu. Oh, okay, perfect. Thank you.
  • 00:10:08
    Yeah, so, there is one other item I
  • 00:10:11
    just wanted to discuss is the. The generation assumptions
  • 00:10:15
    that we presented for the RTP.
  • 00:10:19
    So, I know this was back in April,
  • 00:10:23
    we presented the generation assumptions for the
  • 00:10:27
    2024 RTP, where we had to
  • 00:10:31
    move away from this figure 6.9 criteria,
  • 00:10:35
    or the planning guide 6.9 criteria, where we added additional generation
  • 00:10:38
    to meet the projected load. In the case where we had
  • 00:10:42
    significant increase in the load projections in the 2024
  • 00:10:45
    RTP, where we added roughly around 60 gigawatts of additional
  • 00:10:49
    load. Following that, we opened it for
  • 00:10:53
    comments. There were several comments received based
  • 00:10:58
    on that presentation. So I wanted to touch base and give an update
  • 00:11:02
    on those comments and the next steps from ERCOT.
  • 00:11:07
    So, generally, the comments were around this additional
  • 00:11:11
    generation that was added beyond 6.9
  • 00:11:15
    and what's in ERCOT so what
  • 00:11:18
    we defined as additional generation that's needed to balance
  • 00:11:22
    the load flow case to meet the projected load.
  • 00:11:26
    So, some of the comments, the way we defined it, is like we
  • 00:11:30
    added across the cut system, we added generation
  • 00:11:33
    to meet the load roughly around, like, ten gigawatts of load plus.
  • 00:11:38
    So the comments fell under four different categories.
  • 00:11:42
    So, obviously, the term that was referred,
  • 00:11:46
    the generation hub, some of the comments highlighted that that
  • 00:11:50
    might be confusing or mistaken with some of the settlement
  • 00:11:54
    hubs or market terms. And there were
  • 00:11:58
    a three other comments related to how
  • 00:12:03
    we model this generator. Especially,
  • 00:12:07
    we pick locations based on where we think the load is showing
  • 00:12:11
    up on the case, and we added generation.
  • 00:12:15
    And there were comments along
  • 00:12:18
    the lines of whether this generator represents
  • 00:12:24
    any intention from ERCOT to develop generation in
  • 00:12:27
    this location or you know, is ERCOT creating new
  • 00:12:31
    market incentives or new incentives to create this
  • 00:12:34
    generation build? And the last comment was
  • 00:12:38
    long lines of like, you know, maybe we should look at, you know, spreading this
  • 00:12:42
    generation across the system. So those were the set
  • 00:12:46
    of comments received for that particular generation,
  • 00:12:51
    additions or assumptions in the RTP. So just,
  • 00:12:56
    we try to address this in several RTP. We try
  • 00:13:00
    to clarify some of the things. Our intent for adding this generation
  • 00:13:04
    is to make sure we have RTP
  • 00:13:08
    case. Strictly from a powerful perspective, we are able to solve
  • 00:13:12
    the case. This is pretty important
  • 00:13:15
    to have a case start case to move along for the RTP.
  • 00:13:20
    I think our intention is at this point,
  • 00:13:25
    as I said, this is beyond what's in the planning guide.
  • 00:13:28
    So we are planning to submit
  • 00:13:32
    a revision request to capture some of this assumptions
  • 00:13:35
    or future generation assumptions and how we would model
  • 00:13:39
    in the future cases or future RTP so that we
  • 00:13:42
    intend to file something sometime before the end of the year.
  • 00:13:45
    So there will be an opportunity for the stakeholders to, you know,
  • 00:13:50
    discuss or bring these comments and, you know, as part
  • 00:13:53
    of that revision request. And also
  • 00:13:57
    looking at the 2024 RTP, as I said, this is,
  • 00:14:01
    this is purely driven by the need because we, we have
  • 00:14:05
    to match the generation and load. So these assumptions,
  • 00:14:09
    I know we are, you know, we don't have consensus from everybody, but we
  • 00:14:13
    have to make a certain set of assumptions to move forward with the study.
  • 00:14:16
    So in that context, you know, we have
  • 00:14:20
    very limited time, or we had very limited time to incorporate
  • 00:14:24
    all these comments. One thing ERCOT is planning to do
  • 00:14:27
    is to address these comments. We will add language
  • 00:14:31
    in the 2024 RTP to clarify
  • 00:14:34
    or address some of the four themes raised here.
  • 00:14:38
    So I guess if, you know,
  • 00:14:43
    if there is a need to clarify this before this end
  • 00:14:47
    of the year report, we can certainly come
  • 00:14:52
    up with some clarifying language and
  • 00:14:56
    present it at future RPG or other stakeholder
  • 00:15:00
    meetings. So with that, I'm going to stop
  • 00:15:04
    and see if there are any comments or questions. Thank you.
  • 00:15:09
    Well, probably I'll speak for,
  • 00:15:13
    you know, my company and I guess broadly as well, but we appreciate
  • 00:15:17
    the fact that you took those comments and,
  • 00:15:20
    you know, kind of appreciate the position that you find yourself
  • 00:15:24
    in. And so I personally
  • 00:15:28
    would love to see the clarifying language that
  • 00:15:32
    you plan to put in there. And I think this
  • 00:15:36
    report and this time slot might be a good time to
  • 00:15:39
    update everyone in case that everyone's not plugged into
  • 00:15:43
    RPG. But I will pause and see if there
  • 00:15:47
    are any different comments on this topic.
  • 00:16:02
    Sandy's asking if there was a timeline for the PGRR.
  • 00:16:07
    I heard you say towards the end of the year, Prabhu, but is
  • 00:16:10
    there more to it than that?
  • 00:16:13
    Yeah, we are working on this. This is still
  • 00:16:16
    in the early stages of what we need to define in the
  • 00:16:20
    PGRR internal discussion. So our intention is
  • 00:16:23
    sometime before the end of the year, we wanted to get this thing
  • 00:16:27
    moving and hopefully have it approved for the next RTP.
  • 00:16:31
    That will be ideal.
  • 00:16:35
    Thanks, Prabhu.
  • 00:16:45
    All right, it looks like, looks like the queue is clear.
  • 00:16:48
    So Prabhu and Robert, thank you both for bringing
  • 00:16:52
    the update to us this month. We appreciate it.
  • 00:16:55
    Thank you.
  • Item 5.3 - GTC Update - Yunzhi Cheng
    00:16:58
    Okay, so that will take us to the GTC update.
  • 00:17:02
    I did not see anything posted, so I'm assuming this is
  • 00:17:05
    just a verbal update for ROS.
  • 00:17:12
    Hi, good morning. Can you hear me okay,
  • 00:17:17
    we can. Oh, looks like you got something posted. Okay, I must have missed that.
  • 00:17:21
    Go ahead. Thank you. Good morning everyone.
  • 00:17:25
    This is indeecheon from ERCOT operations. I'd like to provide
  • 00:17:29
    some GTC update. Next page please.
  • 00:17:34
    Yeah, we have a few GTC updates. The first one is Hamney organ
  • 00:17:38
    GTC update. We updated Hamilton
  • 00:17:42
    to consider the impact of the local generation model update.
  • 00:17:47
    Overall, the lab update. The limit change is very minor.
  • 00:17:51
    The interface remains the same.
  • 00:17:55
    Next slide please.
  • 00:18:00
    The second one is the Wiley aerial GTC update. We have
  • 00:18:03
    update Wiley Export GTC, Los Annenberg to
  • 00:18:07
    Larva GTC and Nelson shopper to real Honda GTC
  • 00:18:11
    name is to consider the impact of the second
  • 00:18:14
    circuit from San Miguel to Fallouton
  • 00:18:17
    Marlboro, Saniso del Sol, Pamido and Mouse Annenberg.
  • 00:18:23
    Also we consider the recent QSA units as
  • 00:18:27
    well. Overall, the limit has increased
  • 00:18:31
    a little bit and the interface remains the same.
  • 00:18:36
    Next page please. The last one is the
  • 00:18:40
    McKamey GTC update. As we update the GTC
  • 00:18:43
    limit to consider the impact of the second circuit from
  • 00:18:48
    Silo Kelly to noid to single tree to slip,
  • 00:18:52
    metro to Big Hill, and also some recent QAC
  • 00:18:55
    units. And similarly the
  • 00:18:58
    limit have increased a little bit and TTC interface
  • 00:19:02
    remain the same. That's a
  • 00:19:06
    quick update for the recent GTCs. We'll be happy
  • 00:19:10
    to answer if there are any questions.
  • 00:19:15
    Thank you. YMC, Mark Price,
  • 00:19:19
    go ahead. This is Mark Price from DC Energy.
  • 00:19:23
    Can you hear me? Yes,
  • 00:19:27
    my question is, and it's not on your presentation, but hopefully
  • 00:19:31
    you could provide an update on the implementation of
  • 00:19:35
    SCP. There was a market notice
  • 00:19:38
    that went out on June 28 that this would be
  • 00:19:42
    implemented on all gtcs starting on July 1.
  • 00:19:46
    We were wondering if that has indeed gone into implementation
  • 00:19:51
    for all gtcs and if it's still in
  • 00:19:54
    the testing phases, or if it's actually fully
  • 00:19:57
    live at this point in time, particularly around the limits that
  • 00:20:01
    are being used for gtcs.
  • 00:20:07
    Look like third year.
  • 00:20:10
    Yes, this is Fred Garcia, ERCOT.
  • 00:20:13
    Yes, you're correct. That market notice did go out
  • 00:20:17
    for full implementation of SCR
  • 00:20:21
    819 for July 1.
  • 00:20:23
    So, from ERCOT's perspective,
  • 00:20:28
    we've concluded all our testing and all
  • 00:20:32
    the changes as part of SCR 819 are
  • 00:20:36
    fully productionalized in the ERCOT EMS.
  • 00:20:42
    So they are. It is being used for all gtcs.
  • 00:20:47
    Thank you. Welcome.
  • 00:20:52
    Thank you.
  • 00:20:57
    Okay, I see our queue is clear.
  • 00:21:02
    Anyone else, before we move on to the next report?
  • 00:21:08
    Okay, thank you very much.
  • Item 5.4 - Outage Coordination - Chris Azeredo
    00:21:15
    All right, so that takes us to the outage coordination for pun
  • 00:21:19
    resource planned outages.
  • 00:21:23
    Chris or Fred, I will let you tee this one up.
  • 00:21:29
    This is Chris Azeredo. Can everybody hear me?
  • 00:21:34
    Good morning. We can. Excellent.
  • 00:21:38
    Chris Azeredo, outage coordination from ERCOT.
  • 00:21:43
    So, a short presentation on a difficulty we're running into in outage
  • 00:21:47
    coordination in regards to punsitive key takeaways,
  • 00:21:52
    the pun registration. It's used to determine the eligibility for
  • 00:21:56
    net metering under NPRR945.
  • 00:22:00
    We've had an increase in the number of registered puns, which is causing
  • 00:22:04
    a few issues with in regards to outage coordination.
  • 00:22:08
    And we're just going to go over a proposed solution to address
  • 00:22:11
    the issues. Next slide,
  • 00:22:14
    please.
  • 00:22:17
    These are just the definitions protocol definitions for pond,
  • 00:22:22
    and we have the PUC industrial
  • 00:22:27
    generation facility definition
  • 00:22:31
    and per ERCOT protocols. Industrial generation
  • 00:22:34
    facilities, IGF resource
  • 00:22:37
    plant outage requests. They are not subject to the MDR POC
  • 00:22:42
    methodology.
  • 00:22:46
    Next slide, please.
  • 00:22:51
    So, historically, we've used the pun registration to
  • 00:22:55
    determine the eligibility for
  • 00:22:59
    protocol three one six as a proxy for
  • 00:23:02
    the IGF status. With the increased
  • 00:23:06
    amount of registered puns, it's created a few challenges with
  • 00:23:10
    outage coordination, because it's reducing the number
  • 00:23:13
    of generation resources subject to MDR POC.
  • 00:23:18
    With the number of puns expected to continue growing outage coordination,
  • 00:23:21
    we need a better way to recognize non industrial
  • 00:23:25
    generation facility puns. So, before NPRR945,
  • 00:23:30
    pun was approximately equal to IGF definition,
  • 00:23:35
    and after NPRR945 pun
  • 00:23:39
    designation to not always equal an industrial generation facility.
  • 00:23:44
    Next slide, please.
  • 00:23:47
    So, the mitigation option we
  • 00:23:51
    will be. We plan on adding a new enumeration type called
  • 00:23:55
    netted network in the ERCOT model applications.
  • 00:23:59
    This should have no impact to resource entities, no impact
  • 00:24:02
    of the current registration process, and minimal impact to the
  • 00:24:06
    ERCOT systems. So anything
  • 00:24:10
    that was previously an industrial
  • 00:24:14
    generation facility will remain as a pun.
  • 00:24:17
    And if it was not an industrial generation facility,
  • 00:24:22
    internally we will be referring to it as a netted network.
  • 00:24:28
    Next slide, our next steps.
  • 00:24:31
    We plan to start co testing and provide
  • 00:24:35
    information plan in Q 420 24.
  • 00:24:39
    We plan to issue an RFI to existing puns to
  • 00:24:43
    identify industrial generation facilities.
  • 00:24:46
    And we will also plan to develop a process for
  • 00:24:50
    new puns that wish to claim an exemption from MDR POC
  • 00:24:55
    and be an industrial generation facility.
  • 00:24:59
    And we plan on issuing a market notice before this implementation.
  • 00:25:03
    And we can provide updates to RoS later if
  • 00:25:07
    needed. And that
  • 00:25:11
    is all. Thanks Chris.
  • 00:25:14
    So a couple questions for you. So what's the timeline
  • 00:25:18
    for sending out the rfis?
  • 00:25:22
    So what's the timeline for sending it out? And then what's your response
  • 00:25:25
    timeline?
  • 00:25:34
    Fred, if you want to take that.
  • 00:25:40
    Yeah. Good morning, this is Fred from ERCOT. Just want to check, can you
  • 00:25:44
    hear me? Yes.
  • 00:25:47
    Okay, so I think we are still working on
  • 00:25:51
    the, the IFI details,
  • 00:25:54
    but I think tentatively our plan is
  • 00:25:58
    probably later summer or like early fall,
  • 00:26:02
    like later Q3, early Q4. And the
  • 00:26:06
    response time? I think the
  • 00:26:10
    target is the current register pound.
  • 00:26:13
    So looking for the feedback,
  • 00:26:17
    we have not decided response time, but typically what the typical
  • 00:26:20
    IFI response time we will likely follow other
  • 00:26:25
    process.
  • 00:26:34
    Okay, so sometime
  • 00:26:38
    within the, sometime maybe the September, October timeframe,
  • 00:26:42
    you could provide an update to ROS.
  • 00:26:46
    I know, I mean I don't, I guess I'm not going to claim to know
  • 00:26:50
    the magnitude of the problem, but the RPOC
  • 00:26:54
    has been an issue, as you guys have heard in other forums.
  • 00:26:58
    So anything that helps alleviate the constraints
  • 00:27:02
    there would be very helpful.
  • 00:27:05
    Okay. I think the
  • 00:27:08
    way we try to address this one is try to
  • 00:27:12
    identify this option as kind of Chris highlighted.
  • 00:27:19
    It will not have impact to existing process
  • 00:27:23
    from the stakeholders perspective,
  • 00:27:27
    including existing and also the local
  • 00:27:30
    945. So really from
  • 00:27:35
    outside perspective, there's no changes at
  • 00:27:38
    all. And this solution here is try to mainly help
  • 00:27:43
    us internally to better recognize it and
  • 00:27:47
    put the proper capacity of generation into right
  • 00:27:51
    category when we determine the MDR POC
  • 00:27:55
    and when we review approved outage request. So that's kind
  • 00:27:58
    of the options we internally have
  • 00:28:03
    our SME help to develop and identify. So here today we just
  • 00:28:06
    try to really try to share
  • 00:28:10
    with the group and looking for the feedback.
  • 00:28:15
    Overall, we see this as a very positive way to mitigate
  • 00:28:19
    our issues and without affecting any our existing process and
  • 00:28:23
    definitely focus on no impact to the stakeholders on your side.
  • 00:28:27
    Thank you. And we can come back either August
  • 00:28:31
    or September once we have more information. We'll be
  • 00:28:35
    happy to come here to provide update.
  • 00:28:44
    That sounds good to me. Fred, I appreciate the thought that you put into
  • 00:28:48
    this and how you could come up with a solution that doesn't
  • 00:28:51
    have a big impact to everyone.
  • 00:28:56
    I'll pause another second and see if anybody pops in the queue, but I do
  • 00:29:00
    appreciate that timeline and reporting back to us.
  • 00:29:04
    Thank you both for putting this together. Thank you for
  • 00:29:08
    the feedback. Thanks.
  • 00:29:20
    Okay. With that, we're going to move down.
  • 00:29:24
    We. Okay, so. All right. So I am
  • 00:29:29
    hoping we can kind of take six,
  • 00:29:32
    6.5 together.
  • 00:29:35
    (item:8.3:NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities)There are a couple of things going on.
  • 00:29:39
    When golden spread filed NOGRR 265,
  • 00:29:44
    they did request urgent status,
  • 00:29:47
    but we did have a discussion about this at LFLTF
  • 00:29:52
    on Monday, and so
  • 00:29:56
    the request for urgency may
  • 00:30:00
    no longer apply. Now, I don't, I want to let you
  • 00:30:04
    know, GSAC and ERCOT speak to that,
  • 00:30:07
    but let's let them speak to that
  • 00:30:11
    because we would have to take a vote on urgency before we
  • 00:30:14
    got to the language if they do still want to move forward with
  • 00:30:18
    that path. So let me pause and see if we've got a
  • 00:30:21
    representative from, from golden spread to speak up on
  • 00:30:25
    on that first threshold issue.
  • 00:30:29
    Yeah, Katie, this is Chris Conan, golden spread electric co op.
  • 00:30:32
    Thanks for the introduction. I don't think the urgency
  • 00:30:36
    status is needed per se. It was recommended by ERCOT
  • 00:30:40
    by one, I guess, one department and then the other now has now come out
  • 00:30:44
    and requested it be tabled to file
  • 00:30:47
    additional comments. And I think we're waiting on encore to do the same.
  • 00:30:51
    So we're fine with that. I guess my main question is,
  • 00:30:55
    can we go ahead if we do table it today, if we could
  • 00:30:59
    refer that to OWG so they can start taking a look at it as well,
  • 00:31:02
    because we'd like to get this moving forward as quickly as possible.
  • 00:31:06
    It's a concern that we've seen since the onset of LFLTF
  • 00:31:10
    two years ago, and it's only getting worse as we
  • 00:31:13
    add more load.
  • 00:31:20
    Yeah, Chris, I appreciate that update and
  • 00:31:23
    hear where you're coming from. So what I
  • 00:31:27
    was going to propose is that I
  • 00:31:31
    do know that ERCOT's working on comments. They did
  • 00:31:35
    talk to AG offline in preparing for this to make sure
  • 00:31:38
    that ERCOT would be okay with go ahead and referring us over to
  • 00:31:43
    OWG. It sounds like they're okay with that.
  • 00:31:47
    I know that Martha talked about filing comments on
  • 00:31:50
    behalf of encore at LTF on Monday,
  • 00:31:54
    but I think if we can table and refer this over to
  • 00:31:57
    OWG, they could get started on some
  • 00:32:01
    of the other sort of fundamental pieces of this specifically,
  • 00:32:06
    I would like OWG to look at the appropriate
  • 00:32:11
    trigger for deployment. I think what's in here right now is
  • 00:32:14
    3100 MW PRC, but I'd like
  • 00:32:18
    OWG to at least take a look and see if that's appropriate
  • 00:32:22
    or if something, you know, closer to EEA might
  • 00:32:26
    make more sense. So, I mean, I'll open
  • 00:32:30
    it up for. For discussion, but I agree
  • 00:32:33
    with you, Chris, I'd like to go ahead and see this go over to
  • 00:32:37
    OWG as well as your
  • 00:32:41
    NPRR that hasn't been formally referred, but is on
  • 00:32:44
    the agenda.
  • 00:32:51
    And then, Brett, you've got a comment in the queue.
  • 00:32:55
    Okay, for the NOGRR, what is the penalty structure for
  • 00:32:58
    non performance by a queasy? If the queasy has a curtailed load
  • 00:33:02
    that doesn't follow the proper protocol.
  • 00:33:04
    So, Chris, I'll let you see if you want
  • 00:33:08
    to take that question.
  • 00:33:12
    I guess I'm not seeing the question in the chat. Or where
  • 00:33:15
    is that at?
  • 00:33:19
    Oh, Brett, I think you sent that to me privately,
  • 00:33:22
    but that is the question.
  • 00:33:25
    What is the penalty structure for non performance by a queasy?
  • 00:33:28
    If the cuisi has a curtailable load that doesn't follow the proper protocol,
  • 00:33:34
    I have to defer to ERCOT for that. That's probably a tre question.
  • 00:33:54
    Okay, thank you.
  • 00:34:04
    Okay, since I'm not hearing anything,
  • 00:34:07
    what I would propose is that,
  • 00:34:10
    you know, there's normally someone from the tre on the OWG
  • 00:34:15
    meetings. So, Brett,
  • 00:34:18
    if you don't mind maybe teeing that up once we
  • 00:34:22
    get it over to OWG. OWG has their next meeting
  • 00:34:26
    on July 19, so that is next week.
  • 00:34:31
    And then I'm looking in the queue. I'm seeing
  • 00:34:35
    some agreement with me ether. Did you want to
  • 00:34:38
    expand on that? No, I just agree
  • 00:34:41
    with your proposal to table and refer to OWG.
  • 00:34:56
    Perfect. Okay, anyone opposed
  • 00:34:59
    to taking the NPRR and the NOGRR together?
  • 00:35:04
    Well, we could table and refer those over to OWG.
  • 00:35:08
    And if there's no opposition, we could add those to the combo ballot.
  • 00:35:25
    Perfect. All right,
  • 00:35:33
    so it looks like we are good with that,
  • 00:35:37
    Chris. Hopefully that gets you what you needed. It's least moving
  • 00:35:40
    over and can start being looked at by the folks at OWG.
  • 00:35:45
    Yes. Thank you, Katie.
  • Item 7 - PRS Referrals - Katie Rich
    00:35:53
    All right, so moving right along, that takes us down to item
  • 00:35:58
    number seven. So we've got some new referrals
  • Item 7.1 - NPRR1229 - Katie Rich
    00:36:03
    from PRS. The first one is
  • 00:36:07
    1229. This one was sponsored by Stack and
  • 00:36:12
    it was referred over to ROS and WMS.
  • 00:36:16
    So we did have some discussion about this yesterday at WMS
  • 00:36:20
    and Lucas, I will
  • 00:36:23
    let you lay this out if you want to,
  • 00:36:26
    and then maybe talk a little bit about PRS,
  • 00:36:30
    kind of what I heard someone saying
  • 00:36:33
    they wanted ROS to look at, but definitely looking for some
  • 00:36:37
    feedback from ROS on, you know, where it would be appropriate
  • 00:36:41
    to have this reviewed.
  • 00:36:45
    Hello, Katie.
  • 00:36:49
    So, NPRR1229,
  • 00:36:54
    it's settlement related NPRR here that
  • 00:36:57
    we filed. It basically creates
  • 00:37:01
    a make hole whenever ERCOT
  • 00:37:05
    must implement constraint management
  • 00:37:09
    plan or issue of EDI in
  • 00:37:13
    order for reliability. And in doing so,
  • 00:37:20
    a resource is then subsequently tripped
  • 00:37:24
    offline and wouldn't have but for
  • 00:37:28
    the action that ERCOT took or had
  • 00:37:32
    to take. And this came about
  • 00:37:36
    last summer. Whenever ERCOT had to
  • 00:37:42
    issue operating instruction to manage
  • 00:37:45
    the. The flow from the coast
  • 00:37:49
    to the interior, they had to issue
  • 00:37:53
    an operating instruction that had put our resource
  • 00:37:58
    in the n minus one. Where should
  • 00:38:02
    the line have tripped operated, our resource would have
  • 00:38:06
    tripped offline. And so we
  • 00:38:10
    don't think it is appropriate for a
  • 00:38:13
    resource to wear that risk without
  • 00:38:17
    some compensation. So that's what the NPRR
  • 00:38:22
    is seeking, is just, if that does occur,
  • 00:38:26
    then there would be a make hole
  • 00:38:30
    provided to the resource.
  • 00:38:35
    I know a lot of the questions that have
  • 00:38:38
    come up, at least on ERCOT side, or are related to
  • 00:38:42
    settlements and some policy decisions
  • 00:38:47
    on some of the costs that are included here
  • 00:38:51
    in the NPRR.
  • 00:38:55
    And so I know that was some of the feedback that ERCOT provided
  • 00:38:59
    yesterday at WMS and in comments to
  • 00:39:03
    the NPRR and at PRS as well.
  • 00:39:09
    You know, it's important to stick because we saw it last summer and we
  • 00:39:13
    think it. It's going to happen again or, you know,
  • 00:39:17
    any. You know, especially in August, we'd expect ERCOT
  • 00:39:21
    to have to do the same thing. So we, you know,
  • 00:39:25
    we asked for urgency. Of course, it was a bit. Bit much
  • 00:39:29
    to take on for, to get it through that
  • 00:39:32
    way. So prs took a second 2nd
  • 00:39:36
    look and then decided to punch over to WMS
  • 00:39:40
    and Rosin. Not sure. I don't
  • 00:39:43
    exactly remember. Katie,
  • 00:39:47
    we briefly touched on that.
  • 00:39:50
    I believe Kevin Hanson might have requested
  • 00:39:54
    an ROS look. Not. I don't recall exactly
  • 00:39:57
    why, but. Or the proper place,
  • 00:40:02
    being that this is mostly settlement related,
  • 00:40:04
    but take
  • 00:40:10
    questions or however you want to go from here. Katie. Not sure if that was
  • 00:40:14
    good or if I needed further explanation or. No,
  • 00:40:17
    no, good job. And I think you're right
  • 00:40:20
    with that list of policy issues that, you know,
  • 00:40:24
    committed to putting together. I really think that was in advance of
  • 00:40:28
    WMWG. I mean, on this side, you know, there are.
  • 00:40:32
    Are sort of key words here, like CMP and BDI.
  • 00:40:37
    And those sorts of things that would, you know, maybe trigger a look
  • 00:40:40
    by OWG. But, you know,
  • 00:40:44
    I'm looking for the group to see if that's,
  • 00:40:47
    you know, appropriate here, if there's an appetite
  • 00:40:51
    to have OWG or maybe one of the other working groups
  • 00:40:55
    to look at it.
  • 00:41:07
    And if I don't see that, then we can always
  • 00:41:11
    leave it tabled here at ROS and let
  • 00:41:15
    WMS kind of do its piece on their side.
  • 00:41:18
    And then if there is anything that results that might have
  • 00:41:21
    a Ros impact, we could take it up then.
  • 00:41:31
    Do you have a preference? Lucas?
  • 00:41:39
    We're not. I mean, we're not changing any. Anything ERCOT can do
  • 00:41:44
    for reliability or, you know,
  • 00:41:48
    needing to manage the grid with CM, you know, constraint management plans or
  • 00:41:52
    I. Or operating instructions or anything like that. So I don't
  • 00:41:57
    know if it needs to go anywhere.
  • 00:42:00
    I would say we can just leave it at Ros,
  • 00:42:04
    if that's okay.
  • 00:42:10
    Yeah, I'll pause and let Eno weigh in and then
  • 00:42:13
    we can pick back up. Go ahead, Eno.
  • 00:42:30
    You know, do we. Do we have you? I can't hear you yet.
  • 00:42:33
    I was doubling. Excuse me. What I was
  • 00:42:37
    saying is that, as I said yesterday, ERCOT is putting
  • 00:42:40
    together right now a list of policy questions
  • 00:42:45
    that stakeholders should answer, should address,
  • 00:42:49
    and they may include operational issues.
  • 00:42:53
    It might be premature at this point to state
  • 00:42:57
    what those operational issues are. Again, it might be
  • 00:43:01
    best to maybe keep this NPRR table
  • 00:43:05
    at Ros until we have the opportunity to develop
  • 00:43:08
    those questions and issues and then discuss them at
  • 00:43:12
    WMWG and maybe come back to this group, unless someone
  • 00:43:16
    from operations has. Wants to chime in. But at
  • 00:43:20
    this point, it might just be best to wait.
  • 00:43:26
    Yeah, I would confer with that as well.
  • 00:43:30
    You know, I hear Lucas saying the same thing.
  • 00:43:35
    I'm sorry. No, go ahead. So, Katie,
  • 00:43:38
    I also want to say that this is really not a settlement issue.
  • 00:43:42
    When we say settlement, do we really mean how to take
  • 00:43:46
    money from lows and give it to generations?
  • 00:43:49
    This is more of a. In my view, in my mind,
  • 00:43:53
    it's more of a operational policy decisions as
  • 00:43:57
    well as cost related issues.
  • 00:44:00
    So it's not just. I mean, WMS yesterday stated they
  • 00:44:05
    want to send this to the settlement groups, but I'm not sure that's
  • 00:44:08
    the right move. As I stated yesterday, this is really about
  • 00:44:12
    policy on how to recover
  • 00:44:15
    costs, what costs can be recovered,
  • 00:44:18
    and whether or not the CMP,
  • 00:44:23
    or basically for
  • 00:44:27
    a QSC to submit a. A dispute related to
  • 00:44:31
    CMP. Is that appropriate or not? Anyways, I think we're
  • 00:44:34
    going to. We're going to come up with a list of issues,
  • 00:44:37
    discuss them at WWG, and then maybe ROS
  • 00:44:41
    can. Can provide their opinion.
  • 00:44:49
    I like that plan. You know,
  • 00:44:53
    I'd like to see how they get fleshed out. And I
  • 00:44:57
    think many of those policy issues are appropriate for WMWG,
  • 00:45:02
    just as you described. So unless
  • 00:45:06
    there's any opposition, I would add this
  • 00:45:09
    to the combo ballot to table here at ROS.
  • 00:45:37
    Thanks, Erin. I think that looks good to me.
  • 00:45:42
    Thank you, Lucas. Yeah,
  • 00:45:45
    thank you.
  • Item 6.2 - NPRR1234 - Katie Rich
    00:45:55
    Okay, so that takes us to 1234,
  • 00:45:58
    and then we also have PGRR
  • 00:46:02
    115 that is tied to this.
  • 00:46:07
    You know, some level of discussion of these has been done at
  • 00:46:11
    lFLTF. These. These are the replacements to
  • 00:46:14
    the prior revision requests related to
  • 00:46:19
    large loads. And so ERCOT has sent me
  • 00:46:22
    their preferences for where to
  • 00:46:26
    refer these both. But I certainly
  • 00:46:29
    want to pause and see if someone from ERCOT wants to
  • 00:46:33
    lay these out at a high level.
  • 00:46:49
    Hey, Bill, this is a g. Did you want to speak or did you want
  • 00:46:53
    me to speak to this?
  • 00:46:57
    Yeah, sorry. I guess I had the double mute thing going,
  • 00:47:01
    but, yeah, I was planning on just giving
  • 00:47:05
    the high level overview on it real quick.
  • 00:47:09
    Make sure you guys hear me. Okay.
  • 00:47:14
    We can go ahead, Bill. All right. All right.
  • 00:47:17
    So, yes, this is the replacement NPRR.
  • 00:47:21
    I think we had discussed it.
  • 00:47:25
    Maybe David called in at last, ROS, and talked about it a little
  • 00:47:28
    bit. But basically,
  • 00:47:32
    we had originally put out an NPRR1191,
  • 00:47:35
    and I think another planning guide
  • 00:47:39
    revision, I think it might have been PGRR111 and a
  • 00:47:43
    operating guide revision. We took the comments
  • 00:47:46
    from those, and we basically
  • 00:47:50
    withdrew those older protocol
  • 00:47:53
    revisions and replaced them with these two
  • Item 7.2 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
    00:47:57
    new revisions. 1234 is the NPRR,
  • 00:48:01
    and the planning guide revision is 115. So they're intended
  • 00:48:05
    to kind of go in together. So I'm glad that they're
  • 00:48:09
    over here at the Rosnow. The protocol
  • 00:48:12
    revision inserted some new
  • 00:48:17
    requirements based on comments that deal with modeling
  • 00:48:21
    in the operations model. And so we think that
  • 00:48:25
    probably the NPRR should get remanded over to
  • 00:48:28
    the network to data support working group so
  • 00:48:32
    they can talk about the modeling pieces that got put into
  • 00:48:35
    the new NPRR and then the planning
  • 00:48:39
    guide revision. We have been talking a lot at the task force
  • 00:48:43
    and with a lot of the tsps before we
  • 00:48:47
    propose this, so I think they're aware of it.
  • 00:48:50
    But there hasn't been an official discussion in the
  • 00:48:54
    planning working group, so we think the PGRR should probably get remanded over
  • 00:48:57
    to the planning working group. So more folks that are
  • 00:49:00
    dealing with interconnections of loads in that
  • 00:49:04
    area and have some discussion.
  • 00:49:08
    But overall, we have removed a couple of things that were
  • 00:49:11
    in the original concepts.
  • 00:49:15
    The original concept had the registered curtailable
  • 00:49:19
    load, which was similar to what golden
  • 00:49:23
    spread proposed in their
  • 00:49:27
    language. I think that's NPRR1238 and
  • 00:49:31
    that's the one that you guys just got done talking about that's going to get
  • 00:49:35
    remanded over to the OWG.
  • 00:49:40
    I will mention that we kind of think that the
  • 00:49:44
    NPRR that we have 1234 might
  • 00:49:47
    be required before you can kind of
  • 00:49:50
    work on the golden spread.
  • 00:49:53
    So I don't think the golden spread one could possibly go
  • 00:49:57
    faster than these NPRRs.
  • 00:50:01
    They might be depending on some of the work that's in this one.
  • 00:50:04
    So it's good that they're all over here at ROS at this
  • 00:50:08
    point, but those are
  • 00:50:13
    some differences there. We did also take out some
  • 00:50:16
    of the ride through requirements and
  • 00:50:20
    we also did remove
  • 00:50:26
    a few other items.
  • 00:50:30
    So generally this is just about interconnection
  • 00:50:34
    and about how to get those
  • 00:50:37
    large loads modeled and connected.
  • 00:50:42
    And we've removed some of the other items that
  • 00:50:45
    were in it that were controversial.
  • 00:50:50
    So I'm going to stop there for just a second, see if there's
  • 00:50:54
    any comments.
  • 00:50:57
    Before we get to Floyd, just wanted to
  • 00:51:01
    make sure I understand the NPRR you are proposing
  • 00:51:05
    to send to NDSWG. Is that correct?
  • 00:51:11
    Sorry, somebody was Im in me here. So say that again for
  • 00:51:15
    the NPRR. You wanted that to be looked at by NDSWG?
  • 00:51:21
    Yeah, I mean theres some language in there that probably
  • 00:51:24
    touches on the work that that they do. And so we just want
  • 00:51:27
    to make sure that we have a chance to discuss with those folks. Both Ag
  • 00:51:32
    and myself have plans to probably attend the next BLWG and
  • 00:51:36
    NDSWG if this gets remanded over there so that we
  • 00:51:39
    can have those discussions with those folks. But that's
  • 00:51:43
    kind of our thinking is that the NPRR should
  • 00:51:47
    probably go over to NDSWG group and that
  • 00:51:51
    the planning guide revision should be
  • 00:51:55
    ELWG. And hopefully we could get
  • 00:51:58
    that set of discussions coming back pretty quickly because
  • 00:52:01
    I think we've removed most of the things that were going
  • 00:52:06
    to take system changes and might be more problematic.
  • 00:52:11
    So hopefully we can get this moving pretty quickly and maybe
  • 00:52:14
    that means that the golden spread can move along fairly quickly as
  • 00:52:18
    well.
  • 00:52:21
    Yeah, I think it would be good if we saw movement on
  • 00:52:24
    all four of these and certainly fine
  • 00:52:28
    with your referral. Floyd, I know you filed comments
  • 00:52:32
    and I feel like maybe those can be addressed
  • 00:52:35
    at the working groups coming up, but did you have another comment?
  • 00:52:42
    My comments were on the NPRR1234
  • 00:52:48
    are, you know, the, they're asking
  • 00:52:51
    the ToS to provide information
  • 00:52:55
    about what a load is doing, and we just
  • 00:52:59
    want to make sure that that information that's being provided
  • 00:53:03
    is considered highly confidential and
  • 00:53:07
    protected information or actually critical infrastructure.
  • 00:53:11
    So we made changes to the NPRR to accomplish
  • 00:53:15
    that. I think the NPRR1234 is a great
  • 00:53:19
    improvement over what we had before,
  • 00:53:22
    and I think most of it is acceptable as
  • Item 8.1 - PGRR115
    00:53:25
    it is. We also made comments on
  • 00:53:29
    the PGRR115,
  • 00:53:32
    and that one has a lot of problems in it.
  • 00:53:36
    And the problems are, is all
  • 00:53:40
    of the, it uses the definition of large
  • 00:53:44
    load, which would include all
  • 00:53:48
    existing load. Existing large loads, over 75.
  • 00:53:54
    In many cases. The language in the PGRR
  • 00:53:58
    is referring to a large load
  • 00:54:02
    that is a new one, but it's unclear if it
  • 00:54:06
    does. So we tried to make clarifications throughout
  • 00:54:10
    all of the places where it
  • 00:54:15
    should be clear that you're talking about a new load for
  • 00:54:19
    planning purposes.
  • 00:54:22
    Section nine of this protocol of this revision
  • 00:54:26
    request also contains a
  • 00:54:30
    disclaimer that it's only referring
  • 00:54:34
    to new large loads.
  • 00:54:38
    And that's a good thing. So we're
  • 00:54:42
    happy with that. We tried to make it a little bit clearer in
  • 00:54:45
    the language that we suggested. And then
  • 00:54:49
    lastly, there's one other thing that I think is real serious.
  • 00:54:52
    There is a clause in the
  • 00:54:56
    planning guide to add remote control
  • 00:55:00
    on feeder breakers into industrial stations.
  • 00:55:04
    And, you know, we don't put remote control on
  • 00:55:07
    generator breakers. You don't put remote control
  • 00:55:11
    on large industrial loads for safety
  • 00:55:16
    reason, personnel safety and facility safety
  • 00:55:20
    reasons. And so we struck that language.
  • 00:55:24
    So that's kind of the summary of our comments,
  • 00:55:28
    but we feel pretty strongly
  • 00:55:31
    that we need to get those, get these
  • 00:55:35
    resolved.
  • 00:55:40
    I think you found some good clarifications. I would ask
  • 00:55:45
    PLWG leadership to, to look at these closely
  • 00:55:49
    when they bring these up at their, their next meeting next
  • 00:55:52
    week. Is that
  • 00:55:56
    something you think I need to participate in?
  • 00:56:00
    Yeah, you might put that on your calendar
  • 00:56:04
    so that you can be prepared to answer some questions,
  • 00:56:07
    but I would hope that they would be ready to tee
  • 00:56:11
    that up. And I appreciate you bringing issues up. Yeah. What,
  • 00:56:14
    what group did you say? I'm sorry, I missed that.
  • 00:56:18
    Oh, PLWG for the PGRR,
  • 00:56:22
    which is what you seem to have the bigger concerns with.
  • 00:56:25
    And then for your clarification language on NPRR
  • 00:56:29
    1234, that's going to go to NDSWG.
  • 00:56:43
    Ken Bowen, go ahead.
  • 00:56:48
    Hey, good morning. Yeah. Ken Bowen, CPS energy.
  • 00:56:52
    Hey, I was reading through this. I might have missed it. Is there
  • 00:56:56
    going to be changes to the annual load data
  • 00:57:00
    the ALDR, the annual load data request process
  • 00:57:03
    through all of this. Maybe I missed it in there. Does anyone know that?
  • 00:57:09
    And if there is, what group would that go to?
  • 00:57:17
    I guess this is Bill. We don't have specific language
  • 00:57:21
    that I believe touches on the ALDR. I mean, I think
  • 00:57:25
    these loads may show up in
  • 00:57:28
    that report down the road. I can go out and ask the
  • 00:57:32
    folks that do the ALDR for us to see if there's anything
  • 00:57:35
    specific. But I think at this time,
  • 00:57:39
    there's nothing that we've added in here that,
  • 00:57:42
    you know, is different or special for the large
  • 00:57:46
    loads. We are getting some information in
  • 00:57:51
    the NPRR that we
  • 00:57:54
    want in the model so that we can have some visibility on these
  • 00:57:58
    different loads of. So I think one of the things that Floyd mentioned
  • 00:58:02
    about this being needed to
  • 00:58:05
    be maintained confidential. What we're expecting is that when
  • 00:58:08
    we have a large load, you know, is it a data
  • 00:58:12
    center or is it a hydrogen facility or is it AI
  • 00:58:17
    type, you know, data center, crypto miner, whatever type of load,
  • 00:58:21
    we may have some classification on those loads in the future in
  • 00:58:25
    the model. So that helps us build dashboards and kind of understand if
  • 00:58:29
    loads are all different and they're behaving differently, we might
  • 00:58:33
    be able to understand better what's going on with these large loads.
  • 00:58:37
    We've done a lot of reporting as far as their price responsiveness, and when
  • 00:58:42
    we get into close to emergency conditions, how they behave.
  • 00:58:45
    And so we just want to have that extra information in the model.
  • 00:58:50
    But I don't see that necessarily lining
  • 00:58:54
    up with any changes in the ALDR at this point.
  • 00:59:02
    Okay. I'd kind of like to have SSWG
  • 00:59:06
    review that and see if there would be any changes needed to
  • 00:59:09
    ALDR.
  • 00:59:13
    So it'd be good if we can send this to SSWG potential for
  • 00:59:17
    that purpose.
  • 00:59:25
    So, I mean, I think that the NPRR just
  • 00:59:28
    kind of addresses operational modeling.
  • 00:59:34
    I think your part talking about the SSWG would worry
  • 00:59:38
    more of the planning. So would you mean that we
  • 00:59:41
    would have also have SSWG? Look at the PGRR.
  • 00:59:50
    I guess I'm a little confused by we're only focused on the network model.
  • 00:59:54
    It seems like the planning model would be,
  • 00:59:57
    you know, would be affected by this as well.
  • 01:00:01
    It definitely will be, but there were some
  • 01:00:05
    discussions and feedback that we got due to some of the legislative
  • 01:00:09
    changes, and we altered
  • 01:00:13
    what we originally proposed, which had some rules about how you
  • 01:00:16
    make it into the planning model. You needed to have some signed agreements
  • 01:00:20
    and whatnot. And we kind of, we removed that due
  • 01:00:25
    to some recent legislative changes. So we
  • 01:00:29
    just focused the NPRR purely on what
  • 01:00:33
    it takes. What do you have to have to make it into the operations
  • 01:00:36
    model? So that's kind of the way it's formulated today.
  • 01:00:41
    And we allow the tdsps to use the criteria that
  • 01:00:45
    they would use for any load in the
  • 01:00:49
    planning world and the SSWG world.
  • 01:00:52
    So I think we've had a lot of those large loads start
  • 01:00:56
    to get added into the SSWG cases.
  • 01:01:00
    If you want to talk about that, probably the PGRR is the right
  • 01:01:06
    document to be reviewed.
  • 01:01:11
    Okay. Thanks for the insight, Bill. Then I
  • 01:01:14
    retract my statement to send it to SSWG and
  • 01:01:18
    probably the PLWG discussion would be fine there. Appreciate that.
  • 01:01:26
    Okay, thanks, Ken and Bill. Okay, so let's take this back.
  • 01:01:32
    So we've got a potential add to
  • 01:01:35
    the combo ballot for NPRR1234.
  • 01:01:39
    We can table and refer that over to
  • 01:01:43
    NDSWG. I haven't heard
  • 01:01:47
    anyone being opposed to that being sent there. So we could add that to
  • 01:01:51
    the combo and then
  • 01:01:54
    for PGRR115. Now that
  • 01:01:58
    we just had this conversation, it sounds like we are okay
  • 01:02:02
    to table and refer this just to PLWG and
  • 01:02:06
    we can add that to the combo ballot as well. So I'll let Aaron pull
  • 01:02:10
    that up.
  • 01:02:19
    Okay. Not seeing anyone in the queue. So we will leave those there.
  • 01:02:29
    And then I believe that leaves us one
  • 01:02:32
    more NPRR and
  • 01:02:36
    NOGRR combo.
  • Item 7.3 - NPRR1235 - Katie Rich
    01:02:41
    So that will take us to NPRR1235,
  • 01:02:45
    which is talking about DRRS and
  • 01:02:51
    wanted to see if someone from ERCOT wanted to lay this out for us.
  • 01:02:55
    This is Nitika. Katie, if it's okay, I can give
  • 01:02:59
    you a quick overview of what this NOGRR and this NPRR
  • 01:03:03
    and NOGRR combo are doing. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:03:07
    So through these NPRRs,
  • 01:03:11
    we are bringing in a
  • 01:03:15
    new type of ancillary service, DRRS dispatchable
  • 01:03:19
    reliability reserve service, into the protocols.
  • 01:03:22
    This is something that the PUC that
  • 01:03:26
    is being developed pursuant to the PURA
  • 01:03:31
    act, which requires ERCOT to develop and implement a
  • 01:03:35
    product like DRRS at a high level. If you
  • 01:03:38
    look at the definitions that we've inserted, this is
  • 01:03:42
    a service that can be provided by resources that can start up
  • 01:03:45
    in 2 hours and sustain their response at
  • 01:03:49
    their high sustained limit for four consecutive hours.
  • 01:03:53
    Now, we had, you may recollect, we've had several workshops
  • 01:03:57
    talking about DRRS and
  • 01:04:01
    how it may work, how it may
  • 01:04:05
    work out. And even we've discussed the NPRR and
  • 01:04:08
    NOGRR, the drafts of these NPRRs and NOGRRs there.
  • 01:04:12
    Originally, we were contemplating
  • 01:04:17
    a wider set of resources being able to provide
  • 01:04:20
    this service. But at least the way NPRR1235
  • 01:04:25
    was written. What we first started by doing is
  • 01:04:29
    working out how the rules would look for when offline generation
  • 01:04:33
    resources provide drrs. So if
  • 01:04:37
    you look at the revision description right here, you will notice
  • 01:04:40
    bullet four onwards, we've got a new resource status that
  • 01:04:44
    will be available in real time and for
  • 01:04:48
    cops to provide so that QSCS can indicate
  • 01:04:52
    when what resources are providing drrs.
  • 01:04:56
    Drrs will be awarded
  • 01:05:00
    and paid for in the day ahead market. It will not be co opted optimized
  • 01:05:04
    in the real time market.
  • 01:05:07
    All of the, actually I should start by saying all of the rules,
  • 01:05:10
    all of the red lines that you're seeing are on top
  • 01:05:14
    of the protocols that would apply under real
  • 01:05:18
    time co optimization with single model. So really
  • 01:05:21
    this would be layered in after those two,
  • 01:05:25
    after those two efforts complete.
  • 01:05:29
    As far as recommendation for
  • 01:05:33
    commitments go, the way the Pura requirements were written,
  • 01:05:36
    it was required for to use drrs
  • 01:05:40
    prior to committing units through RUC. So the way we
  • 01:05:44
    are contemplating of setting up recommendations
  • 01:05:49
    for deploying drrs
  • 01:05:53
    will be within the ruck engine itself. We will set it up such
  • 01:05:56
    that when ruck sees a new need to commit a unit,
  • 01:05:59
    it will prioritize drrs or units that are providing
  • 01:06:03
    drrs over others.
  • 01:06:07
    And then of course, like other ancillary services,
  • 01:06:10
    there are languages that talk about qualification
  • 01:06:13
    and performance requirements. They will look very similar to how
  • 01:06:16
    we qualify and do performance
  • 01:06:20
    monitoring for offline nonspin. So with that, I will pause.
  • 01:06:24
    I'll see if folks have any questions or feedback for us.
  • 01:06:33
    Thanks to Nick. Couple thoughts.
  • 01:06:37
    So I know Sierra club has filed comments talking about
  • 01:06:41
    the inclusion of esrs and I think
  • 01:06:45
    that you guys have responded to that in
  • 01:06:48
    terms of looking at this through a phased approach. So your
  • 01:06:52
    first phase would be offline dispatchable resources
  • 01:06:57
    and then, you know, at a future date looking at whether
  • 01:07:02
    esrs could be incorporated. Do I have
  • 01:07:06
    that right? That is absolutely correct. So at least
  • 01:07:10
    right now you are right. We are looking to do this in a phase manner.
  • 01:07:14
    We did think through all of
  • 01:07:17
    the potential issues
  • 01:07:20
    that would need to be discussed for esrs to provide drrs
  • 01:07:26
    this particular product, and there were quite a few
  • 01:07:29
    things to sort out. So we did propose the
  • 01:07:33
    way we were considering to approach incorporating
  • 01:07:38
    additional resources to provide drrs would certainly
  • 01:07:41
    be through a phased approach, through a separate NPRR so that
  • 01:07:45
    we can work through each of the issues that
  • 01:07:49
    at least we see with the storage, being able to provide the service
  • 01:07:53
    clearly and then formulate an NPRR that addresses
  • 01:07:57
    only those.
  • 01:08:02
    Thank you Nitika. And then as far as
  • 01:08:06
    a referral goes. Since PDCWG
  • 01:08:11
    referred to use looks at all of the, you know,
  • 01:08:14
    ancillary service documents and methodology. I thought
  • 01:08:17
    that they might be the appropriate group to
  • 01:08:21
    refer this to, but wanted to pause Nitika and see if you had someone
  • 01:08:25
    else in mind.
  • 01:08:28
    No, I mean, you are right that the PDC does review ancillary
  • 01:08:32
    services, so should there be things that need to
  • 01:08:36
    be reviewed in these, this NPRR at least they seem
  • 01:08:40
    to be the right place.
  • 01:08:57
    Okay, great. So I'm not seeing anyone in the queue.
  • 01:09:00
    So I would propose to add a table and
  • 01:09:04
    refer to PDCWG to the combo
  • 01:09:08
    ballot.
  • Item 8.2 - NOGRR264 - Katie Rich
    01:09:17
    All right, Erin, let me be more clear. So we would, we would send both
  • 01:09:21
    NPRR1235 as
  • 01:09:26
    well as its matching NOGRR
  • 01:09:30
    264.
  • 01:09:53
    Thank you very much. Okay,
  • 01:09:56
    still not seeing anyone in the queue so I will assume we're okay with
  • 01:09:59
    that. And I think that we've
  • 01:10:03
    got everything paired together now so
  • Item 9 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS
    01:10:07
    that will take us down
  • 01:10:11
    to the items that are currently tabled
  • 01:10:14
    at ROS and
  • 01:10:19
    I am not aware of any reason to
  • 01:10:22
    pull either of these two items, but we'll certainly pause
  • 01:10:26
    to see if there's anyone else that has an opinion on
  • 01:10:30
    these.
  • Item 10 - Operations Working Group - Rickey Floyd
    01:10:37
    Okay, not seeing any. So that will take us down
  • 01:10:41
    to our working group updates and we
  • 01:10:44
    will start with the operations working group and Tyler,
  • 01:10:48
    you've got a presentation for us.
  • 01:10:55
    Good morning everyone.
  • 01:10:59
    Go ahead and begin the OWG ROs update. We can go
  • 01:11:03
    to the next slide.
  • 01:11:07
    ERCOT reported some unofficial peaks. The May peak
  • 01:11:11
    demand was 77,122 MW on 527
  • 01:11:14
    and hour ending 17. Previous peak for
  • 01:11:18
    May was 68,169 MW,
  • 01:11:22
    solar penetration 19,387 MW
  • 01:11:26
    on 518 1140.
  • 01:11:32
    Go to the next slide. Thanks Texas re
  • 01:11:35
    gation reports NERC alert from June
  • 01:11:39
    Forest was acknowledged by 99% of the participants
  • 01:11:43
    in Texas that was on inverter based resource model quality
  • 01:11:47
    deficiencies. The annual
  • 01:11:50
    report has been posted on the NRC website and NERC
  • 01:11:54
    is requesting participants to join the National Standards
  • 01:11:58
    group.
  • 01:12:02
    (item:10.2:NPRR1221 - Related to NOGRR262, Provisions for Operator-Controlled Manual<br />Load Shed - Rickey Floyd)Next slide did have discussions on NOGRR262
  • 01:12:07
    provisions for operator controlled boat shed.
  • 01:12:10
    Golden spread provided their comments that they had filed on 530.
  • 01:12:15
    We added the phrase by the to or TDSP
  • 01:12:19
    to address the situation where several of the GSDCs
  • 01:12:23
    individual members transmission or distribution service provider TSP cooperatives
  • 01:12:29
    do not have data control for
  • 01:12:33
    their load shed. AP raised some concerns
  • 01:12:36
    again that the should term still
  • 01:12:40
    do not provide enough flexibility to use commercial
  • 01:12:43
    load that is SCADA controlled by the customer.
  • 01:12:47
    OWG made some edits on paragraph seven.
  • 01:12:51
    SCADA controlled load shed is preferred to be utilized by
  • 01:12:55
    the to or TDSP and the OWG reach consensus
  • 01:13:00
    on those edits and formally submit the comments to
  • Item 10.1 - NPRR1070 - Rickey Floyd
    01:13:05
    endorse OWG. On the comments filed on 627.
  • 01:13:14
    OWG reached consensus on NPRR1221 that was filed on 3/20/24
  • 01:13:27
    for NPRR1070. ERCOT is still working
  • 01:13:32
    with UC staff to finalize the language on the
  • 01:13:35
    congestion cost savings criteria and does not have
  • 01:13:38
    a specific time yet. So that does remain tabled at the OWG.
  • 01:13:42
    There was not an OTWG update and
  • 01:13:50
    the hit us reminder of
  • 01:13:58
    the timeline for public and private submission and
  • 01:14:03
    then there was no other business discussed be
  • 01:14:07
    the end of the OWG update.
  • 01:14:11
    Thanks Tyler. So I want to thank OWG for their work
  • 01:14:15
    on NPRR1221 and NOGRR
  • 01:14:19
    262. I know you guys talked about that for several meetings
  • 01:14:24
    and it's great that you now come to consensus.
  • 01:14:27
    So these two are now ripe for us
  • 01:14:31
    to add to our combo ballot today.
  • 01:14:34
    We'll pause and see if there's any opposition
  • 01:14:39
    to adding both of those.
  • 01:14:45
    Okay Aaron, let's get them added. We've got
  • 01:14:49
    a nice little list accruing here.
  • 01:14:55
    Great. Perfect. Thank you.
  • Item 10.4 - Break - Katie Rich
    01:15:00
    I think we're doing pretty good on time. We'll see if we need a little
  • 01:15:06
    break later, but I would prefer propose that we go on and let
  • 01:15:10
    the planning working group give their update.
  • 01:15:32
    Hello, am I coming through? You are,
  • 01:15:35
    Dylan, go ahead. Great. Appreciate it. Good morning everybody.
  • Item 11 - Planning Working Group - Dylan Preas
    01:15:39
    This is Dylan Preas, PLWG chair. I'll be giving the update
  • 01:15:43
    to Ros this morning. Slide so
  • 01:15:48
    PLWG met on June 11.
  • Item 11.1 - PGRR107 - Dylan Preas
    01:15:50
    On the agenda we had tier
  • 01:15:51
    107. We've been tracking this one for a couple of months.
  • 01:15:54
    Inclusion of forecasted load in planning analysis.
  • 01:15:58
    This one's been been tabled. We had
  • 01:16:01
    a quick update from the folks that are working on it and
  • 01:16:05
    agreed to table it in June for follow up discussion.
  • 01:16:09
    I anticipate seeing some comments posted pretty soon
  • 01:16:12
    on this one on this picture,
  • 01:16:17
    so be watching your inbox. PoWG leadership
  • 01:16:21
    if comments are posted, we'd like to take it up at next Tuesday's
  • 01:16:25
    meeting. So if you can take a take a look at
  • 01:16:29
    anything that gets posted, prepare for that discussion would be
  • 01:16:32
    helpful. Slides so
  • 01:16:37
    new South Texas GTC and ERCOT RTP
  • 01:16:40
    this assignment came out of a question at the February
  • 01:16:44
    Ros that was assigned to PLWG on
  • 01:16:48
    on this topic. It was discussed at PLWG in March
  • 01:16:52
    March and provide
  • 01:16:56
    an update on this one. In the past, ERCOT provided a
  • 01:16:59
    high level that the prior RTP was conducted under planning
  • 01:17:02
    assumptions that are under review, specifically around load scaling and
  • 01:17:06
    resource adequacy and that ERCOT plans to bring future
  • 01:17:10
    revision requests related to planning assumptions to Ros.
  • 01:17:14
    Well, Peru queued this one up earlier in the
  • 01:17:17
    the the ERCOT updates the plan system planning update
  • 01:17:21
    that ERCOT does have a PGRR underdevelopment
  • 01:17:27
    per boo. We plan to see this by the end of the year related to
  • 01:17:30
    specifically generation assumptions included in planning
  • 01:17:34
    analysis that's directly related to
  • 01:17:37
    this, this item, I'm pretty certain.
  • 01:17:42
    So we. This, this item isn't on
  • 01:17:45
    the ROS action items list. I do
  • 01:17:49
    not believe, but I believe POWG is concluded
  • 01:17:54
    discussion on this one, so I don't plan to carry this forward on
  • 01:17:57
    the agenda. If anyone has any questions on that,
  • 01:18:01
    please let me know.
  • Item 19.2 - Review Open Action Items List - Katie Rich
    01:18:09
    Open action item we're carrying is related to congestion cost
  • 01:18:13
    test implementation and NPRR1070.
  • 01:18:17
    This one's been on our agenda, our open action
  • 01:18:21
    list for some time related to planning criteria for GT exit
  • 01:18:25
    solutions. It remains tabled as ERCOT staff develops draft
  • 01:18:28
    revision requests.
  • 01:18:34
    Next slide. And that's all I have this morning. I did catch the
  • 01:18:38
    PGRR115 assignment to PLWG, so I will
  • 01:18:42
    include that on the next agenda. I'll finalize the agenda today for
  • 01:18:46
    PLWG. That next meeting is on next Tuesday, July 16.
  • 01:18:51
    So the agenda, hopefully we'll get it posted this afternoon
  • 01:18:55
    and, and like to see folks
  • 01:18:59
    ready to go with the, at the, at the next week's meeting to discuss
  • 01:19:03
    these topics. Thank you.
  • 01:19:08
    Yeah, thank you so much. And thank you for adding that
  • 01:19:12
    figure so quickly. I want to go
  • 01:19:18
    with ERCOT's request to try to move
  • 01:19:21
    that along so hopefully people will tune in and
  • 01:19:25
    we'll have a, a good discussion. I know Floyd will be there and you
  • 01:19:30
    know, you guys can take a look at his language and any, anyone else that
  • 01:19:34
    wants to bring up any issues. So I do appreciate you adding
  • 01:19:38
    that to the agenda timely. And thank you for your update.
  • 01:19:42
    Certainly appreciate it.
  • Item 12 - Steady State Working Group - Zach Walker
    01:19:44
    Thanks. Okay,
  • 01:19:48
    that will take us to SSWG.
  • 01:19:57
    You can be alright, we can go ahead.
  • 01:20:03
    Hi all, my name is Zach Walker, I'm the vice chair of SSWG.
  • 01:20:07
    I'll be filling in for William today. He's on vacation. Next slide,
  • 01:20:11
    please. So, main SSWG updates,
  • 01:20:15
    the 24 SSWG cases have been posted along with the
  • 01:20:18
    Tippet and CRR reports. These are our first set of no breaker cases.
  • 01:20:23
    And then also we have updated the associated contingencies and data
  • 01:20:26
    dictionary along with these. And they all should now be on the MIS.
  • 01:20:30
    We've also started the new case Bill 24 SSWG update one.
  • 01:20:34
    These are scheduled to be posted in October.
  • Item 12.1 - SSWG Procedure Manual - Zach Walker
    01:20:37
    And then finally the main, main item for today,
  • 01:20:40
    we have a procedure manual update. We are seeking ROS
  • 01:20:44
    approval on the next slide. Can have some detailed changes.
  • 01:20:50
    So main items that this update addresses is. One is for figure 113.
  • 01:20:55
    This is an open action item from PLWG.
  • 01:20:57
    And basically we added language to remove any temporary
  • 01:21:01
    configurations for congestion mitigation from the SSWG cases
  • 01:21:05
    and places responsibility on ERCOT to remove those. The next
  • 01:21:08
    main item is FAC for 14, three, six. We updated
  • 01:21:12
    language and added Appendix F to comply with this new FAC requirement.
  • 01:21:17
    Basically, it just requires TSPs and ERCOT to provide technical rationale
  • 01:21:20
    for any less limiting facility ratings in the SSWG cases.
  • 01:21:24
    And then finally, just a couple other small changes with extraordinary dispatch reordering
  • 01:21:28
    and a couple of data field requirements in the ERCOT planning
  • 01:21:31
    database. So that's the main topics and
  • 01:21:34
    updates for us. Any questions?
  • 01:21:42
    Thank you. Any questions for Zach,
  • 01:21:46
    either on his update or on the procedural
  • 01:21:50
    manual that is up for a vote today?
  • 01:22:19
    If there are no comments, then I would propose to go
  • 01:22:23
    ahead and add this to the combo ballot.
  • 01:22:42
    Thanks, Erin.
  • 01:22:48
    And then we can go ahead and keep this pulled up.
  • 01:22:53
    I want to give everyone a chance to look through
  • 01:22:57
    this just to make sure we're all okay with
  • 01:23:01
    this since we jumped around a little bit. So we've got the
  • 01:23:05
    meeting minutes. NOGRR
  • 01:23:08
    265 from golden spread. We went ahead and sent that
  • 01:23:12
    over to OWG and then
  • 01:23:16
    (item:6.1:NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - Possible Vote)1238 hasn't been referred to us from PRS
  • 01:23:20
    yet, but going to go ahead and refer that over to OWG
  • 01:23:24
    as well to try to keep those together.
  • 01:23:36
    Yeah. Thank you for that clarification.
  • 01:23:40
    And then stacks 1229.
  • 01:23:44
    We're going to leave here tabled. We're going to let WMSWG
  • 01:23:49
    do their work on the policy decisions
  • 01:23:53
    discussion. So that will happen
  • 01:23:57
    on the 23rd if you want to plug into that.
  • 01:24:00
    And then, you know, paired together is
  • 01:24:04
    ERCOT's NPRR1234 and PGRR115
  • 01:24:10
    dealing with large, flexible loads.
  • 01:24:14
    And then also paired together, we've got 1235
  • 01:24:18
    and NOGRR264 for drrs.
  • 01:24:21
    And both of those are going over to PDCWG.
  • Item 10.3 - NOGRR262 - Rickey Floyd
    01:24:26
    And then coming out of OWG,
  • 01:24:29
    we have 1221 in NOGRR262.
  • 01:24:33
    And so we would move
  • 01:24:37
    those along. Well, I think the NOGRR, we would look at the IA,
  • 01:24:41
    but the 1221, we would move along. And then we
  • 01:24:45
    just approve the SSWG procedural
  • 01:24:49
    manual. So does that look acceptable to everyone?
  • 01:25:00
    Okay with, with that, Erin? I think we're
  • 01:25:03
    ready to put the. To a vote once we get
  • 01:25:07
    our motion and our second. So you can.
  • 01:25:10
    (item:13:Combo Ballot - Katie Rich)You guys can just pop in the queue.
  • 01:25:23
    How about I make the motion to approve. Okay, awesome.
  • 01:25:27
    Thank you. Wes. And then Chris Hendricks second.
  • 01:25:30
    Okay, we got it. All right. Now we can proceed.
  • 01:25:33
    Erin.
  • 01:25:39
    Thank you. Katie. Can everyone hear me?
  • 01:25:46
    You can go ahead. Thank you.
  • 01:25:50
    Starting with the consumers. I don't
  • 01:25:54
    believe Cyrus is with us, but I just want to double check.
  • 01:25:58
    Cyrus, are you on the phone?
  • 01:26:04
    Okay, moving on to Mike Reed.
  • 01:26:09
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:26:15
    Navaraj. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
  • 01:26:19
    Thank you. Cooperatives.
  • 01:26:24
    Barry. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:26:29
    Sandeep. Yes.
  • 01:26:34
    Paul? Yes.
  • 01:26:37
    Chris? Yes.
  • 01:26:41
    Thank you. Independent generator.
  • 01:26:45
    Brett.
  • 01:26:48
    Yes. Yes, please. Alex?
  • 01:26:59
    Alex Miller, are you on the phone? Yes. Can you hear me?
  • 01:27:03
    I see you. I just.
  • 01:27:10
    We can't hear you. Okay. I see you in the chat. Thank you.
  • 01:27:15
    Kristen. For Chase. Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:27:19
    Thank you.
  • 01:27:22
    Katie? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:27:28
    Independent power marketers. Adam.
  • 01:27:31
    Yes.
  • 01:27:34
    I don't believe Ian is with us, but I just want to double check.
  • 01:27:38
    Ian, are you on the phone?
  • 01:27:46
    Shane for Resni. Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:27:50
    Thank you.
  • 01:28:02
    Moving on to the independent reps. Kevin?
  • 01:28:07
    Yes, thanks.
  • 01:28:09
    Jennifer.
  • 01:28:18
    Okay, I see. Jennifer. Yes. In the chat.
  • 01:28:21
    Chris. Yes.
  • 01:28:24
    Thank you. Main.
  • 01:28:27
    Yes.
  • 01:28:31
    Investor, owned utilities. Ether.
  • 01:28:36
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:28:39
    Wes. Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:28:43
    Rob. For Chris. Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:28:48
    Thank you. Matthew.
  • 01:28:51
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:28:54
    Municipal Kenneth.
  • 01:28:58
    Yes. Thank you. Chris? Yes.
  • 01:29:01
    Thank you. Matt.
  • 01:29:06
    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And Mike
  • 01:29:09
    for Imani. Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:29:13
    Thank you. Okay,
  • 01:29:16
    the motion carries with 100% in favor. Thank you.
  • 01:29:22
    Yeah. Thank you all. I think we've made some good progress
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 14 - Black Start Working Group - Michael Dieringer
    01:29:26
    today looking at the ballot details. So when
  • 01:29:30
    we get back to the agenda, we are going to
  • 01:29:34
    skip over the black start working group for this month.
  • 01:29:38
    They've asked to come back to us next month, which I'm fine
  • Item 15 - Dynamics Working Group - Paul Koberlein
    01:29:42
    with. So that will take us to the dynamics working group.
  • 01:29:56
    Good morning, everyone. My name is Paul Koberline, and I'm the current chair of the
  • 01:29:59
    dynamics working group. Can someone please confirm they can hear me?
  • 01:30:03
    We can. Paul, go ahead. All right,
  • 01:30:07
    we could go to the next slide, please. Okay, so we've
  • 01:30:11
    met on June 20 of this year,
  • 01:30:15
    and I'll just briefly go over a few items today. So we had a
  • 01:30:19
    2024 2025 flat start update.
  • 01:30:23
    We'll be using the cases released in the
  • 01:30:26
    SWG, cases released in June as a base for this.
  • 01:30:30
    As Zach mentioned, they are going to be no breaker cases. So we're
  • 01:30:33
    anticipating a few challenges and topology errors,
  • 01:30:37
    but we're working hard to fix these, and we're probably going to
  • 01:30:40
    add another pass to sort of mitigate those issues.
  • 01:30:45
    We have a draft procedure manual update for NOGRR
  • 01:30:49
    245. We're going to be discussing that in
  • 01:30:53
    tomorrow's IBR working group dynamics working group meeting,
  • 01:30:56
    which is at the end of the agenda on the IBR working group,
  • 01:31:00
    and we're currently targeting August ros for
  • 01:31:04
    approval that procedure manual update next
  • 01:31:08
    slide please. We discussed some self limiting facilities
  • 01:31:12
    or sls. We got some feedback from ERCOT,
  • 01:31:16
    got some feedback back from the dynamics working group, and we
  • 01:31:19
    received this pretty positively. And there's right now
  • 01:31:23
    there's really nothing standing in our way. We're ready to post this on the
  • 01:31:26
    resource integration page. Arca also
  • 01:31:30
    asked some tsps to provide a list of mod 26 and mod 27 reviews.
  • 01:31:34
    Bye tomorrow. 712 2024
  • 01:31:39
    and with that, that's pretty much all I had. Any questions? Any feedback?
  • 01:31:46
    Well, I wanted to thank you for responding
  • 01:31:50
    to a request to look at the procedural manual
  • 01:31:55
    at IBRWG tomorrow. So wanted folks to know
  • 01:31:59
    that it is on that agenda. If you were looking at it at DWG,
  • 01:32:02
    make sure you plug into IBRWG. I believe
  • 01:32:06
    it's towards the end of the agenda tomorrow morning,
  • 01:32:10
    but make sure that you plug into that since
  • 01:32:13
    that's where they were talking about some changes resulting from
  • 01:32:17
    NOGRR245. And with that,
  • 01:32:20
    I don't see anyone else in the queue. But thank you very much for your
  • 01:32:23
    update. Thank you.
  • 01:32:32
    All right, we've already got Julia teed up with her
  • 01:32:36
    IBRWG report.
  • 01:32:41
    Hi, can you hear me? We can
  • 01:32:45
    go ahead. All right. Yeah, so we had our
  • 01:32:49
    meeting on June 14. We started
  • 01:32:52
    with DWG IBRWG collaboration this
  • 01:32:56
    time talked about. So just to remind people,
  • 01:32:59
    maybe this collaboration is to develop the
  • 01:33:08
    dynamic modeling manual language that reflects
  • 01:33:12
    changes that will come with NOGRR245.
  • 01:33:17
    So we started with talking about transient oval voltage.
  • 01:33:20
    Right? Through conformity assessment, the subgroup
  • 01:33:24
    from IEEE 2800.2 working group
  • 01:33:28
    came to talk about some ideas of how to verify
  • 01:33:32
    this capability. Basically they presented requirements
  • 01:33:36
    from 2800 on the topic and pointed out
  • 01:33:40
    that primary focus here is on assessment of switching transients.
  • 01:33:44
    And then things like lightning and SSR type events
  • 01:33:48
    are already taken care of and have good developed standards of
  • 01:33:53
    how to verify capability. And also
  • 01:33:57
    pointed out that over voltage tripping that occurred during Adesa events
  • 01:34:01
    was not transient over voltage strictly speaking, but rather
  • 01:34:05
    RMS high voltage write through event
  • 01:34:09
    and conformity of this can be assessed through MQT procedures
  • 01:34:14
    that exist today already. So basically their recommendation
  • 01:34:17
    was was that transient over voltage capability of
  • 01:34:21
    the plants is documented based on equipment capability provided by
  • 01:34:25
    OEM. Rather than developing some
  • 01:34:29
    kind of tests in addition to existing MQT
  • 01:34:33
    tests that are done today, then we
  • 01:34:37
    talked about other modeling guide updates
  • 01:34:42
    and ERCOT presented on that continues
  • 01:34:46
    working on this DWG procedure manual.
  • 01:34:49
    As I mentioned to update with simulation tests related to
  • 01:34:53
    NOGRR245 and
  • 01:34:59
    main changes will be to high voltage write through, low voltage write
  • 01:35:03
    through requirements and tov requirement.
  • 01:35:06
    As I just spoke about ERCOT
  • 01:35:12
    has developed and proposed some model
  • 01:35:16
    test criteria and encouraged stakeholders
  • 01:35:20
    to spend some time looking at that. So the presentation
  • 01:35:24
    is posted so you can have a look at the IBRWG
  • 01:35:28
    webpage. We had extensive discussion about
  • 01:35:31
    active power reduction during voltage write through events and
  • 01:35:36
    specific what was observed during edessa events and
  • 01:35:40
    how model acceptance criteria will be also focusing on this
  • 01:35:43
    aspect. So basically, ERCOT promised that
  • 01:35:47
    the DWG procedure manual draft
  • 01:35:51
    will be circulated to IBRWG sometimes
  • 01:35:55
    around the next meeting and we'll have a chance
  • 01:35:58
    to review it and discuss it further.
  • 01:36:01
    And then we switched on to IBRWG
  • 01:36:06
    main meeting topics. Stevens always provided an
  • 01:36:09
    update on NOGRR245. So as you probably all
  • 01:36:13
    know, at the end of April ERCOT got remand from
  • 01:36:17
    board directors to go back to TAC and
  • 01:36:21
    worked with TAC through a number of workshops in May
  • 01:36:25
    on revisions of NOGRR245 t
  • 01:36:28
    and CK approved version of NOGRR245 and
  • 01:36:32
    it was supposed to go to board in June. But then, as again you
  • 01:36:36
    probably know, it kind of returned
  • 01:36:39
    back to TAC and ERCOT currently is working with joint
  • 01:36:43
    stakeholder commenters on some of contentious
  • 01:36:48
    topics trying to come to agreement by August
  • 01:36:52
    board of directors meeting next presentation
  • 01:36:56
    was on NORC standards update as
  • 01:36:59
    was just earlier I mentioned in one of the updates, NRC is
  • 01:37:03
    currently working on a number of standard provisions following up on fore quarter
  • 01:37:07
    901. So as a standing item we are bringing
  • 01:37:11
    this north standard updates to IBRWG
  • 01:37:16
    because most of these standard updates are related to ibrs and
  • 01:37:19
    so the one that got presented last time was PRC 29.
  • 01:37:24
    This is a new IBR write through standard that's being worked
  • 01:37:28
    on. Existing PRC 24 standard widely
  • 01:37:32
    applies to generation resources and is initially
  • 01:37:36
    designed as a protection based standard, which it will remain for
  • 01:37:40
    synchronous generators and synchronous condensers, whereas the new PRC
  • 01:37:44
    29 standard will be focused on IBR right
  • 01:37:48
    through performance requirements. So drafting team
  • 01:37:52
    does lean towards IEEE 2800 standard
  • 01:37:55
    requirements, but the structure follows language of forequarter
  • 01:37:59
    901 which basically leaves it
  • 01:38:02
    to NURC's discretion to decide how to reference IEEE standard
  • 01:38:06
    or whether to reference it at all. In March 2024
  • 01:38:10
    there was initial balloting process for the first draft of PRC 29.
  • 01:38:14
    It failed initial ballot and received received more than 200 comments.
  • 01:38:17
    The standard drafting team worked through the comments, and there was a new
  • 01:38:21
    balloting, I believe, last week.
  • 01:38:25
    The results have not been published. Two days ago, as I
  • 01:38:28
    checked, but I know they received a lot of
  • 01:38:32
    comments again, so they'll be reviewing this language.
  • 01:38:35
    And then in the group, we had extensive discussion on
  • 01:38:39
    documented exemptions for from PRC 29
  • 01:38:44
    and how transmission owners, planners,
  • 01:38:47
    planning coordinators may consider those in
  • 01:38:50
    reliability assessment. So basically, PRC 29, once it's
  • 01:38:54
    approved, will be applied to all resources, and resources that
  • 01:38:58
    are not capable of complying with standard that's already on the ground will need to
  • 01:39:02
    seek exemption, and that exemption will need to be substantiated by
  • 01:39:06
    equipment mandatory manufacturers. But then the discussion
  • 01:39:10
    that we have in the IBRWG group was,
  • 01:39:13
    once these limitations have been captured,
  • 01:39:16
    reliability coordinators will need to consider this
  • 01:39:20
    limitations in the planning processes and operations processes.
  • 01:39:26
    Then also in the previous update,
  • 01:39:29
    somebody mentioned NRC alert,
  • 01:39:33
    level two alert. So Tre presented on that,
  • 01:39:36
    I guess because we already heard about it. I will not spend
  • 01:39:40
    time on this. And then I
  • 01:39:44
    presented other industry updates. One of the,
  • 01:39:48
    some of the notable updates is that FERC approved
  • 01:39:51
    Miso's tariff red lines for the first
  • 01:39:54
    round of IEEE 2800 implementation.
  • 01:39:58
    So this phase of implementation calls out clauses
  • 01:40:02
    of IEEE 2800, specifically around voltage write
  • 01:40:05
    through capability, fast reactive current injection during faults,
  • 01:40:09
    phase jump right through enter service, and measurement accuracy.
  • 01:40:12
    So overall, these are same requirements
  • 01:40:17
    that are in NOGRR245 and NOGRR
  • 01:40:21
    two. I forgot there was another 1255
  • 01:40:25
    on measurements. So this
  • 01:40:28
    got approved by FERC, and now it will be required
  • 01:40:32
    from future resources that are going into MISO in the next
  • 01:40:36
    round of interconnections. MISO also posted
  • 01:40:40
    a draft to adopt some of the grid forming
  • 01:40:44
    capabilities for battery energy storage, and they
  • 01:40:48
    are seeking industry comments. And that period
  • 01:40:51
    ended in June, on June 28.
  • 01:40:55
    So they intend to finalize grid forming requirements by November 2024,
  • 01:41:00
    and then implementation to
  • 01:41:04
    the future resources will be decided. So basically right
  • 01:41:08
    now, I think this is kind of a voluntary requirement. They have not decided
  • 01:41:12
    of how it will be applied going forward, if it will be required from all
  • 01:41:15
    bas or somehow differently. So that's
  • 01:41:20
    still coming. And then NSOE is association of system operators
  • 01:41:24
    in Europe. They are currently working on implementation
  • 01:41:29
    guide for grid forming requirements and have published the first paper
  • 01:41:33
    with some specific tests for testing of grid forming
  • 01:41:37
    capability in simulations. And then e
  • 01:41:40
    Cig, that's organization I'm working for, have created
  • 01:41:44
    a web page that tracks progress of all grid forming
  • 01:41:48
    technology development and deployment innovations.
  • 01:41:53
    And so basically, if you're interested in grid forming. You can go to this one
  • 01:41:56
    page and see existing projects, projects under construction
  • 01:42:00
    who have any interconnection requirements for grid forming, any specifications
  • 01:42:05
    and things like that. So kind of like one stop shop for grid
  • Item 16 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - Julia Matevosyan
    01:42:09
    forming technology. And the last one is
  • 01:42:13
    there is ongoing Doe itox first forum,
  • 01:42:17
    and the purpose of this forum is to facilitate
  • 01:42:20
    understanding and adoption of new and recently updated standards related
  • 01:42:25
    to inverter based resources. So, you know, if this topic interests
  • 01:42:29
    you, this is us wide. It's not ERCOT specific.
  • 01:42:33
    It focuses on IEEE 2800 adoption and also
  • 01:42:37
    tracks changes that happen at NPRR
  • 01:42:41
    standards with NPRR standards related to forequarter 901.
  • 01:42:45
    So any changes with NPRR standards that are related to inverter
  • 01:42:49
    based resources will bring it up to the forum as well. So the forum has
  • 01:42:52
    monthly meetings, and you can see links to sign
  • 01:42:56
    up and also to follow meeting materials.
  • 01:42:59
    Presentation parts of the meetings are recorded as well.
  • 01:43:03
    So this is all I have. Thanks so much.
  • 01:43:09
    Thanks so much, Julia. I appreciate the thorough update
  • 01:43:13
    and we look forward to the discussion tomorrow.
  • 01:43:17
    So everyone tune into that. The agenda is posted, and I believe
  • 01:43:21
    most of the meeting materials are posted for the presentations.
  • Item 17 - Network Data Support Working Group - Gerardo Escamilla
    01:43:26
    Thank you. Thank you. So with that, that will take us to
  • 01:43:30
    NDSWG. I did not see anything posted.
  • 01:43:37
    I was just gonna. Good morning. I was just gonna give a verbal
  • 01:43:42
    on this one. Okay, take it away.
  • 01:43:46
    Yes. So we had a meeting on June 18.
  • 01:43:50
    Yes. We had a presentation on the NPRR1234.
  • 01:43:56
    Joe Kp, he gave us an overview
  • 01:44:01
    of the different scenarios.
  • 01:44:05
    Excuse me. The ICP handbook is still
  • 01:44:11
    on our working group. It's still being determined
  • 01:44:17
    which items, which content of the handbook is binding or
  • 01:44:21
    non binding. There was also a presentation
  • 01:44:25
    for downstream stream production changes. They pretty much
  • 01:44:29
    gave us statistics and
  • 01:44:33
    that's pretty much it. That's what's going on on our group.
  • 01:44:39
    Any questions? Thank you
  • 01:44:43
    for the update, and thank you for taking up 1234
  • 01:44:48
    again at your next meeting.
  • 01:44:53
    Yes, thank you. Okay.
  • Item 18 - Operations Training Working Group - Manual Sanchez
    01:44:56
    With that, we will go to OtWg.
  • 01:45:06
    Good afternoon. Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay,
  • 01:45:13
    you can go ahead. All right. So, good morning. My name is Manuel Sanchez.
  • 01:45:16
    I'm the OTWG chair for this current
  • 01:45:20
    year, and we have a couple of updates in relations to
  • 01:45:24
    training coming up in the next few weeks and months.
  • 01:45:27
    So the first one is an ERCOT Blackstar training.
  • 01:45:31
    This group has been diligently working to test
  • 01:45:35
    and validate all the scenarios using Gridgeo. So we are on
  • 01:45:39
    track based on the information that they provided to provide
  • 01:45:42
    the dates for training from
  • 01:45:46
    October 14 through November 21. It's planned to
  • 01:45:50
    be a two part section of this training. One will
  • 01:45:54
    be a computer based training which will provide cehs
  • 01:45:58
    and the requirement is that this CBT
  • 01:46:02
    has to be completed as a prerequisite before going
  • 01:46:05
    to the in person session. The details
  • 01:46:10
    and registration will be provided at a later time,
  • 01:46:13
    but this section will be providing also CHS
  • 01:46:17
    for all market participants. The other portion
  • 01:46:21
    of this training will be an in person session which is exclusively
  • 01:46:25
    the majority for simulation and the plan is still to be
  • 01:46:29
    using great geo training environment to complete this
  • 01:46:32
    section. The plan for the in person session is two and a
  • 01:46:36
    half days which at the moment states on the
  • 01:46:39
    Tuesday afternoon all the way through Thursday, all day.
  • 01:46:44
    The market notification from ERCOT will be provided
  • 01:46:48
    on an estimated time by the first week of
  • 01:46:51
    September. If there are any questions or any
  • 01:46:55
    specific information, please reach out to John Jarmon or myself
  • 01:46:59
    to get more information. Annette Perio also from
  • 01:47:03
    this group in particular. Next slide.
  • 01:47:10
    Perfect. Then the last portion is on aircraft operations
  • 01:47:13
    training seminar for next year. We are still ahead of planning
  • 01:47:18
    for this session. The only update
  • 01:47:21
    is that this training seminar is going
  • 01:47:25
    to have CEHS and is planning to be hosted by
  • 01:47:28
    ERCOT in the first portion of March April
  • 01:47:32
    timeframe. During cycle two. More details will
  • 01:47:36
    be provided. No plans for simulation exercises or bundling
  • 01:47:40
    up with the EEA emergency notices that we had
  • 01:47:43
    experienced this past year. We are currently looking for
  • 01:47:47
    market participants and SME's to provide information
  • 01:47:51
    or topics that will be important or relevant to the market participants
  • 01:47:56
    and we look forward to hear from any interest
  • 01:48:00
    parties to provide this support
  • 01:48:03
    in additional content and training opportunities.
  • 01:48:06
    The last option is not in this one, but is more
  • 01:48:10
    like a reminder to market participants. ERCOT issued
  • 01:48:14
    or send a notification this week for the
  • 01:48:17
    annual severe weather drill and ERCOT
  • 01:48:21
    is asking for a single point of contact to be involved
  • 01:48:25
    in this drill. The idea is to
  • 01:48:29
    go through a scenario or an event where the
  • 01:48:33
    ERCOT grid will experience a severe condition leading
  • 01:48:37
    up to emergency notifications and emergency conditions.
  • 01:48:40
    So market participants are highly encouraged to participate.
  • 01:48:45
    This is more a communication exercise as
  • 01:48:48
    part of the events, so please
  • 01:48:52
    contact systemoperationstrainingercot.com to
  • 01:48:56
    provide this single point of contact that will be
  • 01:48:59
    involved in this seminar. In this not seminar, this drill.
  • 01:49:04
    Are there any questions? This is all I had for EOTWG
  • 01:49:08
    group.
  • 01:49:15
    I don't see anyone in the Hugh Manuel thank
  • 01:49:19
    you so much for your update and the work that you're doing.
  • 01:49:22
    Outstanding. Thank you for the opportunity and have a great day.
  • 01:49:27
    Thank you and Julia wants to go back
  • 01:49:30
    to IVRWG. Please go ahead,
  • 01:49:34
    Julia. Yeah, hi, again, sorry for
  • 01:49:38
    missing this one. I just wanted to bring to everybody's attention
  • 01:49:42
    that as you probably know, ERCOT is working on grid
  • 01:49:45
    forming requirements as well and they will bring an update on
  • 01:49:49
    this effort to tomorrow's meeting. So there'll be
  • 01:49:52
    almost like 2 hours discussion around that. And I just wanted
  • 01:49:56
    to bring it to people's attention if you were planning to
  • 01:50:00
    or considering attending the meeting tomorrow.
  • 01:50:04
    Thanks and sorry for missing this.
  • 01:50:08
    No, thank you, Julia. And I believe that the presentation for
  • 01:50:12
    that has already been posted. Posted so folks
  • 01:50:15
    can. Yeah, so folks can take a look at that
  • 01:50:19
    in advance and inform their questions.
  • Item 19 - Other Business - Katie Rich
    01:50:23
    Okay. With that, I believe that takes us to other
  • Item 19.1 - 2025 Meeting Schedule - Katie Rich
    01:50:27
    business. The only thing I wanted
  • 01:50:30
    to touch on is the 2025 meeting schedule.
  • 01:50:35
    Suzy and I brought this up last month. We've since
  • 01:50:38
    had a discussion, discussion at PRS. So we
  • 01:50:42
    at PRS are not proposing to change our
  • 01:50:46
    date and time for next year. We would still keep it on the first
  • 01:50:50
    Thursday or thereabouts. And so
  • 01:50:55
    what is changing is that PRS would
  • 01:50:58
    like to go to Wednesday meetings. So the issue
  • 01:51:02
    that introduces is in the some specific
  • 01:51:06
    circumstances. I think it's mainly when PRS
  • 01:51:11
    takes action on an NPRR
  • 01:51:15
    that's going back to PRS that now
  • 01:51:19
    has the language approved and it's going back to PRS
  • 01:51:23
    then for approval there and for the IA
  • 01:51:27
    that there may be instances where they need to wave notice
  • 01:51:32
    because, you know, we're a day later than
  • 01:51:36
    the seven day requirement. I did not hear any concerns
  • 01:51:40
    expressed at PRS about that
  • 01:51:44
    happening from, from time to time. So just wanted
  • 01:51:48
    to make you guys aware of it and wanted to say I didn't really want
  • 01:51:51
    to upset, you know, the ROS meeting too much.
  • 01:51:55
    So that's more of a. Just a small procedural
  • 01:51:59
    thing if it, when, if and when it does occur.
  • 01:52:03
    Suzy, was there anything else I should have added?
  • 01:52:10
    Okay, I think you've covered everything.
  • 01:52:15
    Okay. Thank you guys for
  • 01:52:18
    your participation today with
  • 01:52:21
    everything that was on the combo ballot. We will have some new discussions going
  • 01:52:25
    on at our working group, so tune into those if those
  • 01:52:29
    issues interest you. And then our
  • 01:52:33
    next meeting will be on August 1 and it will
  • 01:52:37
    again be Webex only.
  • Item 20 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
    01:52:40
    And with that I think we can adjourn for the day.
  • 01:52:44
    Thank you all again.
2024-ros-combined-ballot-20240711
Jul 10, 2024 - xls - 140.5 KB
02-agenda-ros-20240711-
Jul 02, 2024 - docx - 53.9 KB
02-agenda-ros-20240711-
Jul 07, 2024 - docx - 53.9 KB
02-agenda-ros-20240711-
Jul 09, 2024 - docx - 53.9 KB
03-draft-minutes-ros-20240606
Jul 02, 2024 - doc - 237.5 KB
03-draft-minutes-ros-20240606
Jul 04, 2024 - doc - 237.5 KB
May-2024-ercot-operations-report_public
Jul 01, 2024 - docx - 544.9 KB
Systemplanningros May2024
Jun 09, 2024 - docx - 407 KB
05-gtcupdate_ros_july2024
Jul 09, 2024 - pdf - 103.3 KB
05-outage-coordiantion-for-pun-and-igf-july-ros-2024_v2
Jul 02, 2024 - pdf - 140.3 KB
7-public_ros_overview_nprr1234_pgrr115_june2024
Jul 10, 2024 - pptx - 162.4 KB
10-owg_ros_20240711
Jul 02, 2024 - pptx - 56.9 KB
11-planning-working-group-update_07112024
Jul 02, 2024 - pptx - 45.2 KB
Meeting-materials-ros-20240703
Jul 02, 2024 - zip - 4.5 MB
Revision-request-ros-20240711
Jul 02, 2024 - zip - 2.7 MB
12-sswg-report-to-ros-7-11-2024
Jul 04, 2024 - pptx - 52.5 KB
12-sswg-procedure-manual-pending-ros-approval_07112024_final
Jul 04, 2024 - docx - 396.5 KB
Meeting-materials-ros-20240703
Jul 04, 2024 - zip - 5 MB
14-bswg-update-ros-20240711
Jul 09, 2024 - pptx - 114.4 KB
Meeting-materials-ros-20240703
Jul 07, 2024 - zip - 2.2 MB
15-dwg-report-to-ros---july-2024
Jul 02, 2024 - pptx - 51.5 KB
Revision-request-ros-20240711
Jul 04, 2024 - zip - 2.8 MB
Revision-request-ros-20240711
Jul 07, 2024 - zip - 3.1 MB
16-ibrwg-report-to-ros-071124
Jul 07, 2024 - docx - 29 KB
18-june_otwg_updates
Jul 02, 2024 - pptx - 607.1 KB
19-draft-2025-block-meeting-schedulev2
Jul 09, 2024 - xls - 352.5 KB
Meeting-materials-ros-20240703
Jul 09, 2024 - zip - 5.7 MB
Revision-request-ros-20240711
Jul 09, 2024 - zip - 3.1 MB
0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
Starts at 00:01:17
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:01:38
2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:02:55
3 - Meeting Minutes - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:04:08
3.1 - June 6, 2024 - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:04:23
4 - TAC Update - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:04:50
5 - ERCOT Reports - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:05:44
5.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
Starts at 00:05:48
5.2 - System Planning Report - Robert Golen
Starts at 00:07:29
5.3 - GTC Update - Yunzhi Cheng
Starts at 00:16:58
5.4 - Outage Coordination - Chris Azeredo
Starts at 00:21:15
8.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
Starts at 00:29:35
7 - PRS Referrals - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:35:53
7.1 - NPRR1229 - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:36:03
7.2 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
Starts at 00:47:57
8.1 - PGRR115
Starts at 00:53:25
7.3 - NPRR1235 - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:02:41
8.2 - NOGRR264 - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:09:17
9 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS
Starts at 01:10:07
10 - Operations Working Group - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 01:10:37
10.2 - NPRR1221 - Related to NOGRR262, Provisions for Operator-Controlled Manual&lt;br /&gt;Load Shed - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 01:12:02
10.1 - NPRR1070 - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 01:13:05
10.4 - Break - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:15:00
11 - Planning Working Group - Dylan Preas
Starts at 01:15:39
11.1 - PGRR107 - Dylan Preas
Starts at 01:15:50
19.2 - Review Open Action Items List - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:18:09
12 - Steady State Working Group - Zach Walker
Starts at 01:19:44
12.1 - SSWG Procedure Manual - Zach Walker
Starts at 01:20:37
6.1 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:23:16
10.3 - NOGRR262 - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 01:24:26
13 - Combo Ballot - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:25:10
14 - Black Start Working Group - Michael Dieringer
Starts at 01:29:26
15 - Dynamics Working Group - Paul Koberlein
Starts at 01:29:42
16 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - Julia Matevosyan
Starts at 01:42:09
17 - Network Data Support Working Group - Gerardo Escamilla
Starts at 01:43:26
18 - Operations Training Working Group - Manual Sanchez
Starts at 01:44:56
19 - Other Business - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:50:23
19.1 - 2025 Meeting Schedule - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:50:27
20 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:52:40

Help Desk