11/20/2024 11:00 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 2:28:58
Duration 3:58:46
Loaded: 62.41%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:29:48
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:07
    All right, Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with
  • 00:00:10
    ERCOT.
  • 00:00:14
    We're going to go ahead and get started with the TAC meeting here.
  • 00:00:18
    Just a couple of meeting reminders real quickly. If you're here in
  • 00:00:21
    the room, if you will, try and enter the chat
  • 00:00:25
    into the chat and just we're going to help Erin out. She's over here in
  • 00:00:28
    the corner today. Or you can hold your card up,
  • 00:00:31
    but give her just a few minutes to capture who it is in
  • 00:00:35
    the room holding their card up if you're going to go that route. If you're
  • 00:00:38
    on the Webex, as we approach the balloting process, please make sure
  • 00:00:42
    to unmute yourself as we approach your segment and then mute after
  • 00:00:47
    you have cast your vote.
  • 00:00:50
    And then also if you're on the
  • 00:00:54
    Webex and you would like to make a comment or make
  • 00:00:57
    a motion, please enter yourself into the chat and wait for the chair to
  • 00:01:01
    recognize you. There's also a
  • 00:01:06
    sign in sheet outside this meeting room door. Some of you may have thought it
  • 00:01:09
    was your lucky day and you didn't have to do that because I forgot to
  • 00:01:11
    get it out there earlier. But it is out there now, so I do encourage
  • 00:01:15
    you to sign in so I can capture you being here in person.
  • 00:01:19
    Also, if the WebEx ends for any reason, give us just a few minutes.
  • 00:01:23
    We will restart the WebEx with the same meeting details or take
  • 00:01:27
    another alternate route and send any new meeting details
  • 00:01:30
    to the segment Listserv. And with that, Caitlin, we have a quorum and
  • 00:01:34
    are ready to get started. Okay, thank you,
  • 00:01:38
    Susie. Let me get to my.
  • 00:01:42
    All right, the antitrust admonition is on the screen.
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith
    00:01:46
    To avoid raising concerns about antitrust liability, participants in ERCOT
  • 00:01:50
    activities should refrain from proposing any action or measure
  • 00:01:53
    that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal or state law.
  • 00:01:57
    And there is more information on the ERCOT website.
  • 00:02:02
    So. Good morning. It is November 20th. This is our November
  • 00:02:05
    regular TAC meeting. We had a late start,
  • 00:02:10
    but I think given our agenda and given that
  • 00:02:13
    Eric Goff is not here today, I think we'll be able to finish
  • 00:02:17
    in a timely fashion. I have a 4pm
  • 00:02:21
    I debated whether I should make that joke or not. So thank you. Thank you
  • 00:02:24
    for the response. I have a 4pm stop, so if we're
  • 00:02:27
    going, Colin will take over. We have lunch coming,
  • 00:02:31
    but I think since we did the late start,
  • 00:02:34
    we'll break maybe for 10 minutes and do a working lunch. I will put Callie's
  • 00:02:39
    email address in the chat. If you are not on
  • 00:02:42
    the lunch list, please reach out to her for
  • 00:02:46
    alt REPs and proxies in the residential and
  • 00:02:50
    the consumer segment. Residential, consumer.
  • 00:02:54
    Eric Goff has given his proxy to Naba.
  • 00:02:57
    In the co op segment, Blake Holt has given his ALT
  • 00:03:01
    rep to Emily Jolly. It says at 11:30, but I see that Emily
  • 00:03:05
    Jolly is here, so that's great.
  • 00:03:08
    We the first order of business I want to get to
  • 00:03:11
    is it's our last TAC meeting of the year.
  • 00:03:15
    Colin is not returning to TAC next year, so I
  • 00:03:18
    wanted to say thank you to him. I really have enjoyed
  • 00:03:22
    working with you. We didn't know each other much before we did leadership
  • 00:03:25
    together. We have a lot more similarities than I expected,
  • 00:03:29
    particularly competitiveness, maybe some stubbornness.
  • 00:03:33
    And I learned a lot from Colin. He brought an expansive kind
  • 00:03:36
    of wide range of knowledge to TAC leadership, not just the engineering
  • 00:03:40
    side. He knows a lot about the market side and the systems
  • 00:03:43
    and everything. And I think having him here to add his
  • 00:03:46
    perspective has been very valuable. Unfortunately, he's going
  • 00:03:50
    to step back for a bit to work to focus on the transmission
  • 00:03:53
    work. So this month's cookies are transmission cookies in honor
  • 00:03:57
    of Colin. They also have a TikTok joke that I'm
  • 00:04:00
    hoping his teenage daughters will explain to him. So please
  • 00:04:04
    enjoy the transmission cookies as I'm calling them and please thank
  • 00:04:08
    Colin for his leadership.
  • 00:04:15
    Make a speech. Yeah, I've got to wait till the members meeting
  • 00:04:18
    for my speech.
  • 00:04:21
    No, thank you, Caitlin.
  • 00:04:24
    I've never been honored by personalized cookies and I will need to consult with
  • 00:04:27
    my teenage daughters for the TikTok interpretation.
  • 00:04:33
    Appreciate everybody's confidence and being able to be seated to this on the table.
  • 00:04:37
    It's been a great year. Learned a lot, really enjoyed working with you,
  • 00:04:39
    Caitlin. We are similar in many ways.
  • 00:04:45
    I'll be taking a step away from TAC at least partially
  • 00:04:49
    for a year or so, focusing on some of the EHV activities that we've
  • 00:04:52
    got coming up here within ERCOT. I won't be completely
  • 00:04:55
    stepping away, but I'll still be around a bit, but just not as
  • 00:04:59
    much as I am right now. So anyways, I really appreciate it.
  • 00:05:03
    Thanks, Caitlin. Okay, I'll remind you, I'll keep joking
  • 00:05:07
    on people, but Cliff told us he would be returning a lot of times and
  • 00:05:11
    we've yet to see him. So I hope you do a better job of that.
  • 00:05:15
    For the second order of business, Richard, do we have a November
  • 00:05:18
    theme? Yes, we do.
  • 00:05:22
    It is a theme, so I want people to think broadly.
  • 00:05:25
    Thanksgiving is that theme. And so you have the wide
  • 00:05:29
    open variety of things from the gratitude itself and
  • 00:05:34
    your gratitude for Eric not being here today to
  • 00:05:41
    food items and folks not cutting in line waiting their
  • 00:05:45
    turn to get to the dessert table,
  • 00:05:49
    as well as, you know, pilgrims, Native Americans,
  • 00:05:53
    boats, sailing ships, you know, etc. So.
  • 00:05:56
    So you're not going to be Turkey today, you know.
  • 00:06:00
    Exactly.
  • Item 2 - Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith
    00:06:04
    Okay. All right.
  • Item 2.1 - ERCOT Board/Stakeholder Engagement Update - Rebecca Zerwas/Ann Boren
    00:06:07
    First serious item of business is continuing our stakeholder
  • 00:06:11
    process and communications discussion. I think we are going to
  • 00:06:15
    take agenda items 2 and 3, I believe,
  • 00:06:19
    up together the process and communication discussion
  • 00:06:22
    and the ERCOT Board stakeholder engagement update.
  • 00:06:26
    We have implemented a number of practices to increase
  • 00:06:29
    our stakeholder communications with the PUC and the board,
  • 00:06:33
    including having commission staff at the table.
  • 00:06:36
    We have Barksdale here for, I think, the third time.
  • 00:06:40
    ERCOT has added some information for revision requests
  • 00:06:43
    with opposing votes. We have added much more substantive information
  • 00:06:48
    to our TAC reports to R&M and to the
  • 00:06:51
    board. We started some TAC leadership briefings with R&M
  • 00:06:54
    leadership. And so those have been really good things regarding
  • 00:06:58
    stakeholder process reform. We had a thoughtful discussion in September.
  • 00:07:03
    I think there's a number of items that we discussed that could be worth pursuing.
  • 00:07:07
    And we do have the ERCOT Board chairman, Bill Flores, here today
  • 00:07:12
    to be part of this discussion and the board stakeholder engagement
  • 00:07:15
    discussion. I understand as well. Bill, would you like to say a few
  • 00:07:19
    words or just have us carry on with discussion? Sure.
  • 00:07:22
    Thanks, Caitlin. Well, good morning, everyone. It's great to be here
  • 00:07:25
    and be part of the process today. I just wanted to share
  • 00:07:29
    a few things with you if I could, and I appreciate Caitlin invited
  • 00:07:33
    me to participate and I'm probably going to try to crash some of your meetings
  • 00:07:37
    in the future. The first thing is that the
  • 00:07:41
    board appreciates your input. We appreciate your engagement,
  • 00:07:44
    your company's engagements with everything
  • 00:07:49
    that ERCOT does. ERCOT wouldn't
  • 00:07:53
    be able to operate with what you do as the market participants
  • 00:07:57
    and as the technical advisors for the
  • 00:08:01
    GRID in Texas. The so we
  • 00:08:04
    recognize that. And earlier this year we started a
  • 00:08:08
    process to try to get to know each of you and your entities over
  • 00:08:12
    the course of the next several months. And we will continue that
  • 00:08:17
    so that we get to know what you're thinking, what your companies
  • 00:08:21
    are thinking, and as what I always like to ask
  • 00:08:25
    is what's keeping you awake at night? So we started
  • 00:08:28
    that process. The second thing that we are focused on is trying to
  • 00:08:32
    work with you to improve the protocol process
  • 00:08:36
    from initiation, through tac,
  • 00:08:40
    through the board, through the PUC, through to implementation.
  • 00:08:44
    So we're going to be working with you. I mean, you've already done some of
  • 00:08:47
    this. You started on it yourselves and we're going to be
  • 00:08:51
    part of that. We appreciate Barksdale being here as well
  • 00:08:55
    to participate, to have a closer interface between what you
  • 00:08:59
    do and the PUC's ultimate policymaking authority
  • 00:09:03
    moving forward. So I just wanted to share that I'm going to spend most of
  • 00:09:06
    my time listening today. If there's
  • 00:09:09
    any ever a time that you need to reach out to me, I'm accessible.
  • 00:09:13
    The folks at ERCOT will share my mobile number with you if
  • 00:09:17
    that's helpful to you. Again,
  • 00:09:20
    we're going to try to be more engaged with you so that we have a
  • 00:09:23
    smoother, better functioning process and a board that quite frankly a
  • 00:09:27
    board that is really understands what
  • 00:09:31
    your part is in terms of the operation on the Texas grid. So thanks
  • 00:09:35
    again, Caitlin, and I look forward to listening. Great. Thank you.
  • 00:09:38
    And I wish I've got all kinds of cool things I could say about ERCOT,
  • 00:09:41
    but I'll keep my mouth closed for now. Take too much time.
  • 00:09:46
    All right, we appreciate that. So do we. Is there any
  • 00:09:49
    discussion we want to have now or do we want to see the engagement
  • 00:09:53
    presentation? Why don't we go ahead with that
  • 00:09:57
    presentation? Ann or Rebecca?
  • 00:10:04
    Corey, are you okay running the deck? Thank you.
  • 00:10:08
    I know Bill gave a pretty good update on the board's appreciation for the
  • 00:10:12
    stakeholder engagement sessions we've had this year.
  • 00:10:15
    And that is something we're building off on 2025.
  • 00:10:19
    The logic of like we'll budget once we get this big thing paid off.
  • 00:10:24
    I don't have money to budget right now,
  • 00:10:37
    so we're going to start that again in 2025.
  • 00:10:40
    I appreciate everybody's done that. We have the last group of companies that are
  • 00:10:44
    meeting before the December board for 2025.
  • 00:10:48
    The goal is to have TAC and prioritize new members
  • 00:10:52
    who may be members of TAC after elections and then work through
  • 00:10:56
    some of the subcommittees and see if there's companies that weren't covered
  • 00:10:59
    in TAC that provide that opportunity.
  • 00:11:03
    And then we're looking at expanding this initiative in
  • 00:11:07
    2025 for additional opportunities for starting with
  • 00:11:10
    TAC leadership to provide briefings to the board and Arnhem leadership.
  • 00:11:19
    So for 2025, the goal is really the companies
  • 00:11:22
    that have gone. A lot of time has been spent on just getting to know
  • 00:11:25
    you and meet and greets. We're going to really hope to strengthen discussion
  • 00:11:29
    towards strategic objectives and core policy issues.
  • 00:11:32
    So I think that kind of opens up expectations on these meetings
  • 00:11:36
    and then kind of facilitate that just
  • 00:11:40
    for public awareness. We do provide a packet of all the information provided with board
  • 00:11:44
    materials in advance of the meetings. So we are requiring the
  • 00:11:47
    bios, the fact sheets, the presentations, those are all required materials in
  • 00:11:51
    advance. So we can best utilize that time and have every prepared to walk
  • 00:11:55
    in the room. So starting with TAC, we're going
  • 00:11:58
    to be sending a participation survey next month. So affirming
  • 00:12:03
    interest again, we're going to try to prioritize companies that have not had this
  • 00:12:06
    opportunity yet and try to schedule everyone for January
  • 00:12:10
    because we're expanding the scope. We are going to look for the in person but
  • 00:12:14
    also virtual forums through the year. So if
  • 00:12:18
    in person versus virtual there's more people you can get in for that meeting.
  • 00:12:22
    That'll be an option on the survey as well.
  • 00:12:30
    Does anybody have feedback they'd like to share? I know Bill's here as well for
  • 00:12:34
    these sessions or things you think ERCOT to do
  • 00:12:37
    a better job of facilitating these opportunities for the year.
  • 00:12:43
    Okay, I see Naba,
  • 00:12:51
    I think she can finish first and
  • 00:12:58
    yeah, this is the slide. So we're going to the kind of next phase of
  • 00:13:00
    this slide. So if there's something about specifically the engagement sessions
  • 00:13:05
    we hosted in 2024 and moving to 2025,
  • 00:13:08
    this would be the the place. And I see Bill's card up as well.
  • 00:13:13
    Yeah. So go ahead Naba. I think she is finished.
  • 00:13:18
    Okay, thank you Rebecca for this explanation.
  • 00:13:23
    So one thing I didn't understand.
  • 00:13:26
    What is a board stakeholder engagement? I know is a great topic
  • 00:13:31
    but I didn't understand the process.
  • 00:13:35
    Where does the request coming from? Should the stakeholder
  • 00:13:38
    need to requests for this meeting or is
  • 00:13:42
    coming from the board or coming from the ERCOT? Can you
  • 00:13:47
    clarify on that thing a little bit?
  • 00:13:50
    I think this initiative in general came from moving towards kind of
  • 00:13:54
    the SB2 board with all independent directors
  • 00:13:58
    getting opportunities for stakeholders in front of the board to have
  • 00:14:02
    one on one engagement conversations that might not be as
  • 00:14:06
    accessible as when it was affiliated directors or with some of the
  • 00:14:10
    commissioners or ex officio board directors. So the
  • 00:14:13
    goal is really to have opportunities for specifically the
  • 00:14:17
    independent directors. I know that's we've included some of the others during
  • 00:14:21
    different cycles to have an opportunity to meet with companies,
  • 00:14:24
    understand what's important to them and really start a broader dialogue
  • 00:14:28
    with the independent directors. So one supplemental question on that.
  • 00:14:32
    So if I need to speak or set up a meeting with
  • 00:14:36
    a board member members so
  • 00:14:40
    who I need to send the email. So I didn't see the
  • 00:14:44
    those details in your page.
  • 00:14:48
    These are the facilitated sessions specifically for the
  • 00:14:53
    time and before the general session of the board
  • 00:14:57
    meetings. So I mean we are requesting that contact
  • 00:15:00
    information and bio information. Those are included the packet. So board
  • 00:15:04
    directors have communication information for the companies they
  • 00:15:07
    meet with. And if. I mean if you have a request for a
  • 00:15:11
    specific board member, you can always send it to myself or ERCOT and we can
  • 00:15:14
    help facilitate to the extent there's a meeting opportunity. Okay, final question.
  • 00:15:19
    So in 2024, so how many.
  • 00:15:23
    I think there are seven group in the TAC. Right. So how many TAC
  • 00:15:27
    members get chance to speak with board members?
  • 00:15:31
    Do you have any number? So the
  • 00:15:34
    goal this year and we should meet it after the final set of
  • 00:15:37
    sessions was all of the member companies. I know the consumer
  • 00:15:41
    segments. We're working on opportunity because there is a board seat
  • 00:15:45
    affiliated with that with the public council that I know is open
  • 00:15:49
    right now. But we will be moving through all of the top members after
  • 00:15:52
    the December war. That should be complete.
  • 00:15:56
    Thank you.
  • 00:16:02
    Go ahead, Bill. So just our perspective.
  • 00:16:06
    We really appreciated the opportunity to meet with board members.
  • 00:16:09
    It's good to hear that we're expanding kind of beyond
  • 00:16:13
    the beta phase. I know the first iteration
  • 00:16:16
    of this process was something we're just trying to test out. We obviously would
  • 00:16:21
    greatly appreciate more time with more board members but
  • 00:16:25
    understand that there's time constraints there on both sides.
  • 00:16:29
    So I appreciate the structure as well.
  • 00:16:33
    Having a more kind of formal agenda on
  • 00:16:36
    company background, bios, things like that. I think that makes sense. I guess
  • 00:16:40
    we would just. Our feedback is we would appreciate more opportunities.
  • 00:16:43
    Please think that can be efficiently done.
  • 00:16:47
    And I'm going to repeat a comment that I made prior is
  • 00:16:51
    a lot of times there are very specific issues that
  • 00:16:55
    come up that are probably outside of the board
  • 00:16:59
    meeting engagement process.
  • 00:17:04
    And we just want to make sure it's clear. I'm glad Chair Flores is here.
  • 00:17:07
    Is the board members know they can reach out to stakeholders to ask questions
  • 00:17:11
    on particular issues. Particularly if we had filed comments. We would
  • 00:17:14
    love to be able to sit down and meet with board members if they have
  • 00:17:17
    direct questions for stakeholders that are involved in particular issues.
  • 00:17:21
    So thank you. And I think that's a really good transition to the
  • 00:17:24
    next slide. Is looking towards expanding this to
  • 00:17:28
    2025. I think one of the. One of
  • 00:17:32
    the discussion points from the stakeholder process improvement
  • 00:17:36
    discussions has really been that stakeholders in
  • 00:17:40
    TAC want the opportunity to address their issues at the board level direct
  • 00:17:44
    and not have ERCOT kind of represent issues. And so we're working
  • 00:17:48
    with TAC leadership. I know Caitlin and Colin had a briefing
  • 00:17:51
    with Bob for the last briefing before the last board meetings as
  • 00:17:55
    R&M chair, but working to have regularly scheduled briefing
  • 00:18:00
    opportunities with the board chair and vice chair and RNN
  • 00:18:03
    committee chairman. And so I think part of that will
  • 00:18:07
    be identifying additional stakeholders. It could be subcommittee leadership if it's
  • 00:18:10
    an issue in front of a specific subcommittee. It could be market segment representation
  • 00:18:15
    if there is a specific issue that certain companies or certain segments feel strongly
  • 00:18:18
    about. But identifying other people to bring in those briefings
  • 00:18:22
    will add value or additional perspectives on high impact projects and
  • 00:18:26
    revision requests. So that is something that we're working with Talk Leadership
  • 00:18:29
    to facilitate for next year and to have those sessions and bring in
  • 00:18:32
    other voices as needed.
  • 00:18:40
    Thanks, Rebecca. Resmi.
  • 00:18:44
    So we have our session planned for December,
  • 00:18:47
    so we didn't have it yet, but we wanted to thank
  • 00:18:52
    you guys for arranging it for or extend arranging
  • 00:18:57
    potentially virtual sessions. That's one of the things that we requested.
  • 00:19:01
    Being a multinational company, company having executives out of country,
  • 00:19:05
    it helps to have that virtual presence and
  • 00:19:09
    support having these kind of meetings going
  • 00:19:12
    forward. Thank you.
  • 00:19:17
    And the last part of this, again, the goals kind of provide opportunities
  • 00:19:21
    not just when things are in front of the board, but as they're developing
  • 00:19:25
    and we've seen things shift and evolve. You'll see this with
  • 00:19:29
    changes to presentations from the ERCOT and working with
  • 00:19:33
    TAC leadership to kind of start teeing those
  • 00:19:36
    up earlier in the process and talk about the big projects and
  • 00:19:40
    timelines and expectations specifically at rm,
  • 00:19:43
    but starting that discussion earlier so there's a more informed
  • 00:19:47
    process and have those again, opportunities for stakeholders but really
  • 00:19:51
    get the board thinking about these things from the front end and understanding
  • 00:19:56
    the pieces of the puzzle and what's happening. So we're working
  • 00:20:00
    with committee leadership at the board level and TAC
  • 00:20:04
    to figure out what that looks like from materials, how we
  • 00:20:07
    focus communications on that key background information.
  • 00:20:11
    I know ERCOT's presentations really focus on key takeaways and decision points,
  • 00:20:15
    but really highlight those on both sides. So again,
  • 00:20:19
    the big picture is we're continuing to work on forums to have
  • 00:20:23
    stakeholder and board engagement and get them perspective on high impact
  • 00:20:27
    projects and at the board and as they develop through the process.
  • 00:20:34
    Okay, we have Ned and then Emily.
  • 00:20:39
    Ned, are you on the phone? I am. Can you hear
  • 00:20:42
    me? Yep. All right,
  • 00:20:45
    thank you. Well, first of all, I want to say thank you Rebecca,
  • 00:20:48
    for presenting this. This is good information and, and wanted
  • 00:20:52
    to welcome Bill. Wish I was there in person to say it, but I
  • 00:20:56
    think it's great that you're there at TAC and
  • 00:21:00
    certainly welcome the additional engagement that you are rolling out. I thought
  • 00:21:04
    Bill Barnes put had some really good
  • 00:21:07
    thoughts and so wanted to echo that and just
  • 00:21:11
    thank you for starting this process. I thought we had some really good conversations when
  • 00:21:15
    we had our engagement sessions and certainly look forward
  • 00:21:18
    to ways to expand and improve on those for
  • 00:21:23
    the board's benefit. So thank you,
  • 00:21:27
    Emily. Thank you. I want to
  • 00:21:31
    echo all the comments you've heard. We found our sessions really valuable.
  • 00:21:34
    We appreciated the time and the opportunity to bring forward some
  • 00:21:39
    of the issues. Now, it worked out, I think, in our favor with some of
  • 00:21:42
    the issues that LCRA was focused on in the stakeholder process
  • 00:21:46
    at the moment aligned pretty well with the timing of our meetings.
  • 00:21:49
    Rebecca, you alluded to a process where that may not always be the case.
  • 00:21:53
    And so having these other avenues to communicate stakeholder feedback
  • 00:21:56
    to the Board on issues in front of ERCOT, we're very
  • 00:21:59
    supportive. One thing I want to think about and better understand and
  • 00:22:03
    engage with ERCOT staff on is considering how the framework
  • 00:22:07
    that's being developed for evaluating revision requests
  • 00:22:11
    and impacts from ERCOT's perspective is
  • 00:22:15
    integrated into this process that y'all are looking at.
  • 00:22:18
    We appreciate y'all taking on that initiative. I know you've presented on it now a
  • 00:22:21
    number of times, and we just want to make sure that that feedback
  • 00:22:25
    back and forth is thought about as we're moving forward and
  • 00:22:29
    formalizing that evaluation of priority revision
  • 00:22:32
    requests at ERCOT. If we could make that request and follow up.
  • 00:22:41
    Thank you.
  • 00:22:44
    Any other comments, questions?
  • 00:22:50
    Okay, again, I think you'll get a survey as the new slate
  • 00:22:54
    of talk as soon as we hop that, we'll get a survey in December and
  • 00:22:57
    then we'll be working with existing talk leadership and
  • 00:23:01
    then Talk leadership for 2025 on starting
  • 00:23:04
    this briefing opportunity and getting other
  • 00:23:08
    companies and teeing up with that agenda should be for starting with the February board.
  • 00:23:13
    Great. Thank you, Rebecca. Anyone else?
  • 00:23:19
    All right. Okay,
  • 00:23:22
    let's. So let's maybe revisit that
  • 00:23:26
    next year as we continue dialogue with the Board. I think
  • 00:23:30
    that they will have some ideas, as Bill alluded to,
  • 00:23:34
    to get to know stakeholders better and on the revision request process.
  • 00:23:37
    And we'll continue that expanded engagement.
  • Item 3 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith
    00:23:41
    So we are on to the meeting
  • 00:23:44
    minutes. I am not aware of any comments or
  • 00:23:48
    edits. Susie, are you aware of anything? No.
  • Item 3.1 - October 30, 2024
    00:23:51
    All right, so I would propose that we put approval of the
  • 00:23:54
    October 30 meeting minutes on the
  • 00:23:58
    combo ballot unless anybody objects.
  • 00:24:03
    Okay, Corey, let's add
  • 00:24:07
    that to the combo. So now we are on to revision request
  • 00:24:11
    summaries or market impact statements and IMM opinions.
  • 00:24:14
    I will turn it over to Ann and the IMM.
  • Item 4 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/ Opinions - Ann Boren/IMM
    00:24:18
    All right, thanks, Caitlin. So we have 15 revision requests on the TAC agenda
  • 00:24:22
    this month. I'll point out the ones that with impacts are NPRR1239
  • 00:24:26
    with a 50 to 100k impact, 1240 with
  • 00:24:30
    a 40 to 60k impact and then 1247
  • 00:24:33
    has a 360 to 440k O&M. That's to accommodate
  • 00:24:37
    for two FDES that have been included in the
  • 00:24:40
    budget already for reasons for Revision. We have
  • 00:24:44
    four that fall in that regulatory category and
  • 00:24:47
    then 11 are of the general system process
  • 00:24:50
    and improvements. And ERCOT does support all of
  • 00:24:54
    the revision requests on this agenda and
  • 00:24:59
    they have provided positive market impact statements for all of them.
  • 00:25:03
    For the credit finance subgroup review, they did not find
  • 00:25:06
    any credit impacts for any of the NPRRs.
  • 00:25:10
    And then for imm, I think most
  • 00:25:14
    are no opinion except for 1247
  • 00:25:18
    they do support NPRR1180 and the associated PGRR107
  • 00:25:22
    they conditionally support. And then
  • 00:25:26
    NPRR1190 they did have a no opinion on this, but they
  • 00:25:29
    have changed to support 1190. And I'll let Jeff
  • 00:25:33
    expand on anything he wants to.
  • 00:25:39
    Sure. Thank you. This is Jeff McDonald, director of IMM.
  • 00:25:42
    So I'm happy to cover. I think the one that's
  • 00:25:46
    probably most interesting is the PGRR107
  • 00:25:49
    NPRR1180 so I'll cover that last
  • 00:25:53
    because the other two are fairly short. You know, regarding see
  • 00:25:58
    it's NPRR1190, the override
  • 00:26:02
    limit provision. So we felt that that
  • 00:26:05
    it was fair in a sense to to
  • 00:26:11
    provide this provision in order to avoid
  • 00:26:15
    having entities operate at a loss
  • 00:26:19
    because of a reduction that they weren't necessarily responsible
  • 00:26:24
    for. So in concept we supported it. Our position didn'
  • 00:26:28
    much beyond that regarding
  • 00:26:32
    NPRR1247 Incorporation of congestion
  • 00:26:36
    cost savings tests in economic evaluation transmission projects.
  • 00:26:40
    So we do feel that more information is better when evaluating
  • 00:26:45
    whether or not there's merit in building additional
  • 00:26:49
    transmission and felt that incorporating
  • 00:26:53
    congestion cost savings with the provision that that the ultimate
  • 00:26:57
    benefit cost analysis is sensible,
  • 00:27:00
    doesn't double count benefits in any
  • 00:27:03
    way due to the addition of this consideration.
  • 00:27:08
    But we felt that more information is better in making these types of high dollar
  • 00:27:11
    value decisions. So we support that.
  • 00:27:14
    And speaking to PGRR107
  • 00:27:18
    NPRR1180 so
  • 00:27:22
    we do conditionally support and I think it makes sense
  • 00:27:27
    just conceptually that you would want to include forecasted load
  • 00:27:31
    in planning analysis, especially given the
  • 00:27:36
    effort and dollar value that result from conclusions from
  • 00:27:40
    the planning analysis. One of the things and the reason
  • 00:27:43
    we provided conditional support here was
  • 00:27:48
    we became concerned at some point regarding some of the discussions
  • 00:27:52
    we've had about the ability
  • 00:27:57
    of ERCOT to do with the forecast
  • 00:28:02
    data that they receive from the transmission entities as
  • 00:28:05
    they see fit in a reasonable way. So the data
  • 00:28:08
    that they receive is reasonable,
  • 00:28:12
    goes through a process of scrutiny and is entered into
  • 00:28:16
    their planning analysis in a way that
  • 00:28:20
    helps that analysis produce the most accurate
  • 00:28:24
    set of results and recommendations. So we
  • 00:28:27
    do in concept feel that it is not
  • 00:28:31
    just advantageous but necessary to include forecasted
  • 00:28:34
    load in your planning analysis. But again,
  • 00:28:38
    based on conversations that we've had with others in our reading.
  • 00:28:42
    Thank you. And our reading of
  • 00:28:46
    both the PGRR and the NOGRR, it seems that ERCOT
  • 00:28:49
    does have. It's not limited in how it uses that data, but we
  • 00:28:53
    just wanted to make sure that it was clear that ERCOT should
  • 00:28:56
    be able to apply discretion and how it uses that data in its planning analysis
  • 00:29:00
    so that it results in the most accurate outcome.
  • 00:29:08
    Okay, any questions or comments here?
  • 00:29:14
    All right, thank you, Jeff. And are we
  • 00:29:18
    good to move on? Okay, we are going
  • 00:29:22
    (item:5:PRS Report Diana Coleman)to the PRS report.
  • 00:29:25
    We do need to waive notice on
  • 00:29:28
    these revision requests because PRS was last week,
  • 00:29:33
    I am told it would be cleanest to do the
  • 00:29:36
    wave notice before we discuss because before we
  • 00:29:39
    can take a substantive vote, we would need to waive
  • 00:29:43
    notice. So we would be doing sort of a mini combo ballot
  • 00:29:47
    right now to waive Notice on NPRR1239,
  • 00:29:51
    NPRR1240, NPRR1246,
  • 00:29:56
    NPRR1247 and NPRR1254.
  • 00:30:01
    Is that a motion? Bob Helton and a second from David
  • 00:30:04
    Key. Any issues or
  • 00:30:08
    discussion on that? All right,
  • 00:30:12
    take it away, Corey. All right, thank you. Motion to waive notice on those
  • 00:30:15
    five NPRRs. We'll start up with the consumers and Naba for Eric.
  • 00:30:19
    Yes, thank you. And then Naba. Yes, thank you. Garrett.
  • 00:30:23
    Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Eric Schubert. Yes,
  • 00:30:27
    thank you, sir. Mark Dreyfus. Thank you.
  • 00:30:30
    Nick. Thank you. On to our co-ops.
  • 00:30:33
    Mike.
  • 00:30:36
    Yes, thank you. Thank you. And then Emily for
  • 00:30:40
    Blake. Yes, thank you. It's right at 11:30. Eric Blakey.
  • 00:30:44
    Yes, thank you. Thank you. John. Yes, thank you. On to
  • 00:30:48
    our independent generators. Brian? Yes, thank you. You,
  • 00:30:52
    Caitlin. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:30:55
    Bob. Transmission cookie. Yes, sir.
  • 00:30:58
    Thanks, sir. Ned?
  • 00:31:02
    Yes, thank you. Corey. Thanks, sir. On to our ipms.
  • 00:31:06
    Rashmi. Yes, thank you. Jeremy? Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:31:09
    Ian? Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you. And Matt, let us know who wouldn't be
  • 00:31:13
    with us today onto our IREPs bill.
  • 00:31:15
    Yes, thank you. Jennifer? Yes, thank you.
  • 00:31:19
    Jay? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Chris.
  • 00:31:22
    Yes, thank you on our IOUs, Keith?
  • 00:31:32
    Keith, Nix, you with us?
  • 00:31:37
    I can take in chat if you're having audio issues.
  • 00:31:41
    I'll loop back. How about David? Yes, thank you. Colin?
  • 00:31:44
    Yes, thank you. All right, got your yes in chat,
  • 00:31:48
    Keith. Thank you, Richard. Thanks,
  • 00:31:51
    sir. On to our munis. Russell,
  • 00:31:55
    I got your yes in chat. Thank you, Russell. Jose? Yes, thank you.
  • 00:31:59
    David. Key. Yes, thank you. And Alicia? Yes,
  • 00:32:02
    thank you. Okay. Motion carries unanimously.
  • 00:32:06
    You officially waived notice on all five of those. So those are all available for
  • 00:32:09
    whatever subsequent motions you'd like to make. Great.
  • 00:32:13
    Thank you. Corey, you're going to get started. Diana.
  • 00:32:16
    So we. Why don't we. We've done this a
  • 00:32:20
    few times. Why don't we pause after the first slide and see if we can
  • 00:32:24
    do something with the unopposed revision request before we get to
  • 00:32:28
    the more contentious one? Okay. Good morning TAC.
  • 00:32:32
    Diana Coleman with CPS Energy. We have five proposed recommendations
  • 00:32:36
    for tax consideration this morning. We have two that
  • 00:32:40
    are unopposed and have no impact. So the first one
  • 00:32:44
    comes to us from ERCOT. This is adding language that's associated with
  • 00:32:48
    energy storage resources in the appropriate places throughout the
  • 00:32:51
    protocols that are aligning provisions and requirements
  • 00:32:55
    for these types of resources that are already for generation
  • 00:32:58
    resources and controllable load resources.
  • Item 5.5 - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data - Waive Notice
    00:33:03
    And then the second one, 1254, also coming to us from ERCOT.
  • 00:33:07
    This is requiring resource entities to submit the initial
  • 00:33:11
    resource registration data for a generator interconnection
  • 00:33:15
    or modification project four months prior to target inclusion.
  • Item 5.1 - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information - Waive Notice
    00:33:22
    And then we have two that are closely related
  • 00:33:25
    and also have a joint priority and rank that we see there
  • Item 5.2 - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information (Waive Notice)
    00:33:29
    on the screen. 1239 and 1240 are moving
  • 00:33:33
    some of the reports that were previously on the Market Information System
  • 00:33:37
    and the secured portion that requires the digital certificates to
  • 00:33:40
    be available on the public part of the ERCOT webpage.
  • 00:33:44
    NPRR1239, this will not connect contain any
  • 00:33:47
    of the ECEII information. And 1240 is
  • 00:33:50
    specific to the transmission planning information. Both of these have a
  • 00:33:54
    project priority of 2025 and a
  • 00:33:57
    rank of 4540 for 1239.
  • 00:34:01
    On September 12, we voted unanimously to approve as
  • 00:34:05
    submitted and then on November 14, we unanimously endorse
  • 00:34:09
    and forwarded the October 17 PRS report and
  • 00:34:12
    the October 29 IA. On 1240.
  • 00:34:18
    We voted unanimously on September 12
  • 00:34:22
    for the language. And then on November 14, we forwarded the
  • 00:34:26
    October 17 PRS report and the October 29 IA.
  • 00:34:32
    Okay, so how are we
  • 00:34:35
    feeling about the unopposed ones? Can we add these to the combo ballot?
  • 00:34:40
    Bob Helton. Yeah, just quickly on the modeling
  • 00:34:43
    deadline for initial submission. This doesn't have any impact.
  • 00:34:46
    So it can be implemented upon PUC approval.
  • 00:34:52
    The only question I have is,
  • 00:34:55
    are we sure that that is not going to
  • 00:34:59
    interfere with any of the pipeline stuff
  • 00:35:02
    that's in right now by throwing this in?
  • 00:35:06
    Probably. Was this going to be January, February at
  • 00:35:10
    latest. Keith, do you know the next network model
  • 00:35:13
    date after that? I don't know off the top
  • 00:35:17
    of my head, but I can find out. Okay, now that's
  • 00:35:20
    my only question. I just want to make sure that somebody doesn't get surprised and
  • 00:35:25
    if it's like three weeks before or
  • 00:35:28
    a period of time before that network model,
  • 00:35:32
    that this change knocks them out of something that they had been planning for.
  • 00:35:36
    So I don't think think we have any, but I just want to make sure
  • 00:35:39
    that. That everyone out there has the opportunity to think about that.
  • 00:35:43
    And I've said this more than just here. So.
  • 00:35:46
    Okay, do you need food? Is there someone from our
  • 00:35:49
    who wants to answer Bob's question or. Bob, do you need feedback on this?
  • 00:35:54
    No, I'm just. I'm okay. I just want to let
  • 00:35:58
    it get everybody on notice. You need to think about this. If you've got an
  • 00:36:01
    issue we need. Understood. Need to get it out there.
  • 00:36:05
    All right. Are we fine to put these on
  • 00:36:09
    the combo ballot then? So it would
  • 00:36:12
    be recommend Approval of NPRR1239 as
  • 00:36:16
    recommended by PRS in the 1114 PRS Report.
  • 00:36:21
    Recommend approval of NPRR1240 as recommended
  • 00:36:25
    by PRS in the 1114 PRS Report.
  • 00:36:28
    (item:5.3:NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era Waive Notice)Recommend approval of NPRR1246 as
  • 00:36:32
    recommended by PRS in the November PRS report and
  • 00:36:36
    recommend approval of NPRR1254 as
  • 00:36:39
    recommended by PRS in the 1114 PRS report.
  • 00:36:43
    Any further questions or comments there?
  • 00:36:46
    All right, Corey, we can add those to the combo ballot. And Diana,
  • 00:36:50
    you can take us to the next slide.
  • Item 5.4 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects – URGENT - Waive Notice
    00:36:54
    Okay. 1247 also comes to us
  • 00:36:57
    from ERCOT. This is incorporating the Consumer Energy Cost
  • 00:37:01
    Reduction test at the Cost Savings Test and
  • 00:37:04
    economic project evaluation to address recent amendments by
  • 00:37:08
    the Public Utility Commission. We've had several working
  • 00:37:13
    group conversations and discussions and a special working group
  • 00:37:16
    on this issue. On November 14th, we voted
  • 00:37:20
    to grant urgent status and recommended approval as amended
  • 00:37:24
    by the November 11th ERCOT comments. There were two
  • 00:37:27
    opposing votes and four abstentions.
  • 00:37:31
    A lot of the conversation can fall into two buckets. One was the
  • 00:37:35
    reference of the two white papers that are included or based
  • 00:37:38
    off of this congestion test evaluation, whether or
  • 00:37:42
    not those needed to be included in the protocols. And the
  • 00:37:45
    second bucket of conversation was the expediency with which
  • 00:37:49
    we need to get this protocol revision request approved.
  • 00:37:56
    Okay, so after prs, we did have comments
  • 00:37:59
    from Luminant filed and or Vistra and from
  • 00:38:04
    ERCOT as well. Is somebody from Luminant on
  • 00:38:07
    to discuss those comments?
  • 00:38:14
    Caitlin? I can jump. Yeah, go ahead, Ned. I figured that
  • 00:38:18
    was my cue. Yes.
  • 00:38:21
    All right. Well, thanks for teeing this up, Caitlin.
  • 00:38:25
    So I think there's been a lot of important
  • 00:38:29
    questions raised in really, especially in the last month
  • 00:38:32
    and a half on this NPRR,
  • 00:38:37
    which stakeholders have been, I think,
  • 00:38:40
    working pretty diligently on since it
  • 00:38:43
    was filed in late August. And you know,
  • 00:38:47
    we recognize that. Well, we've identified
  • 00:38:51
    that there are some, some things that didn't make sense to us like in
  • 00:38:54
    the actual white paper parameters itself.
  • 00:38:58
    For instance, the discount
  • 00:39:03
    factor used to, for the net present value setting that
  • 00:39:06
    at say a 2% rate seems like to us like that is
  • 00:39:10
    first of all just undervaluing the experienced
  • 00:39:14
    and anticipated rate of inflation in general
  • 00:39:17
    as well as the time value
  • 00:39:21
    of money and the opportunity cost of money.
  • 00:39:24
    So that's one element.
  • 00:39:28
    Another is frankly just the way the chosen test
  • 00:39:32
    is designed. We read in the E3 report that
  • 00:39:36
    there was recognition that the gross, the gross cost test
  • 00:39:40
    is not accounting
  • 00:39:44
    for the cost of congestion and hedging is
  • 00:39:48
    refunded. And so we think basic decisions on that
  • 00:39:51
    is probably discounting
  • 00:39:58
    a significant value that accrues to loads. And so recognizing
  • 00:40:03
    that there is an interest in moving this forward quickly,
  • 00:40:08
    our second set of comments that you've got up from
  • 00:40:13
    just last Friday, what that
  • 00:40:17
    is proposing is a path forward which is, you know,
  • 00:40:21
    we know that the majority of congestion costs
  • 00:40:25
    do get refunded and so the,
  • 00:40:28
    or so I should say reallocated. And so in order to
  • 00:40:32
    help it move forward. But maybe I
  • 00:40:36
    would suspect would turn out to be just keeping a
  • 00:40:40
    lot of interest in coming back to sharpen
  • 00:40:46
    the pencil on this, we would propose putting in a 0.25
  • 00:40:50
    multiplier to the calculated congestion cost savings. And that's
  • 00:40:55
    a rough approximation of how we
  • 00:40:59
    looked at the revenue
  • 00:41:03
    from last year relative
  • 00:41:07
    to the.
  • 00:41:13
    I can, I can pause there if folks have questions,
  • 00:41:16
    but you know, we think this is a good, maybe a
  • 00:41:20
    good compromise if there's a need to move forward on something today. We certainly
  • 00:41:24
    would also support tabling and giving stakeholders,
  • 00:41:27
    you know, just a little more time to,
  • 00:41:31
    to work through this, sharpen the pencil and make sure that we get this right
  • 00:41:35
    before sending up to the board.
  • 00:41:39
    Thanks, Ned. Bill Barnes yeah,
  • 00:41:44
    we felt comments on this and abstained
  • 00:41:47
    at prs. So I wanted to explain our concerns
  • 00:41:51
    and perspective on this. A lot of activity Last month at
  • 00:41:55
    the Planning Working Group in ROS,
  • 00:41:58
    the transparency issues, Diane explained ERCOT
  • 00:42:02
    partially addressed some of that with acceptance of some of our comments that include more
  • 00:42:06
    transparency on the modeling inputs. And also we
  • 00:42:09
    felt that there needed to be more detail in the actual protocol language
  • 00:42:13
    on how the methodology works. ERCOT also incorporated or
  • 00:42:17
    incorporated some of those comments as well, which we appreciate.
  • 00:42:21
    Our remaining concerns lie with the fact that
  • 00:42:26
    when the congestion cost savings test was
  • 00:42:29
    passed in the 87th legislature and
  • 00:42:33
    the studies done by Brattle, we were really working under a completely
  • 00:42:36
    different set of assumptions than we have today. And that really speaks to the large
  • 00:42:40
    load growth. And so the concerns that
  • 00:42:43
    we have is part of the process of developing
  • 00:42:47
    the planning models to conduct the
  • 00:42:50
    congestion cost savings test itself have a
  • 00:42:54
    very large supply and demand gap in the later years
  • 00:42:58
    of the model. The way that that will be addressed,
  • 00:43:02
    as suggested by ERCOT staff, is they will place fictitious generation
  • 00:43:06
    somewhere in the planning model. We don't know how that process works
  • 00:43:10
    yet. We don't know where the placement of that fictitious generation will occur that
  • 00:43:14
    will undoubtedly create congestion patterns that will
  • 00:43:17
    impact the outcome of this test. That is a concern for us because we don't
  • 00:43:20
    know how that's going to work yet. So that's why we abstained.
  • 00:43:24
    We still have some discomfort with passing something
  • 00:43:28
    without knowing how all the pieces work, but ERCOT has
  • 00:43:31
    acknowledged that they want to get this piece in place and work on
  • 00:43:35
    the process for locating
  • 00:43:41
    generation to get the model to solve any separate planning guide revision request
  • 00:43:45
    and discussion which we will be participating in. So for that reason we are
  • 00:43:48
    abstaining on this. Thanks. Thanks,
  • 00:43:52
    Bill Seth.
  • 00:43:57
    Seth with VTOL I just want to say that I agree with Vistra and
  • 00:44:01
    I think just as sort of a factual matter, because all
  • 00:44:05
    congestion rents are returned to load through the CRR auction proceeds,
  • 00:44:09
    you're in a situation where you're building transmission to
  • 00:44:12
    lower a cost that would go to load anyway. So it's
  • 00:44:15
    really a bad deal for consumers to not include what
  • 00:44:19
    Vistra is having here. In fact, I think Vistra is putting the
  • 00:44:22
    needle too far back on a compromise into a compromise
  • 00:44:26
    position. I think it should actually be more like 0.75 or a
  • 00:44:30
    much higher adder. I don't think this benefits consumers at all.
  • 00:44:33
    And just in theory, I mean, you're also
  • 00:44:37
    front running generation price signals by building transmission
  • 00:44:41
    for congestion and you're basically getting in front of the
  • 00:44:45
    market signals for generators to be able to site and do efficient things.
  • 00:44:48
    And you're doing that and putting things into rate base instead
  • 00:44:51
    of Allowing your market to work.
  • 00:44:57
    Eric Schubert I'd
  • 00:45:00
    like to respectively disagree with both Seth and Ned on the congestion
  • 00:45:04
    issue. Just because you have
  • 00:45:08
    congestion revenue rights that can cover short term congestion
  • 00:45:13
    doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Okay. If you talk
  • 00:45:16
    about import constraints such as into Houston or in
  • 00:45:20
    the past in Dallas, you have a situation where congestion now
  • 00:45:24
    is indicative of future congestion tightness.
  • 00:45:28
    Right. So you have a situation where
  • 00:45:31
    you need to be proactive in building out transmission
  • 00:45:36
    and it goes beyond just cost. Okay.
  • 00:45:39
    The basis of retail choice in this state in ERCOT is
  • 00:45:43
    having the widest range of possibilities
  • 00:45:48
    of buying power from different retailers from different sources.
  • 00:45:51
    The more congestion you have, the more you limit and you artificially
  • 00:45:54
    raise the value of resources within the load
  • 00:45:58
    pocket. And I think is to facilitate
  • 00:46:02
    the benefits of retail choice long term you need to be proactive
  • 00:46:06
    in building out transmission. So it's not a matter of whether you can hedge
  • 00:46:10
    or not. Secondly, if you start seeing congestion here, it's going
  • 00:46:13
    to start popping up in the forwards. So it
  • 00:46:16
    does impact consumers because if we're out shopping around, all of a sudden prices are
  • 00:46:20
    higher because our choices are more limited. So we are
  • 00:46:24
    definitely in favor of making sure that there
  • 00:46:28
    is plenty of transmission proactively and we are willing to pay
  • 00:46:32
    more in transmission costs to facilitate our
  • 00:46:35
    choices in the market. Thank you. The person relying
  • 00:46:39
    up as chemical company, the person in the load pocket
  • 00:46:43
    is. But you're raising the cost for the people on the other side the constraint.
  • 00:46:46
    So.
  • 00:46:49
    Okay, Seth, we've been under a deal for the last
  • 00:46:53
    25 years where it is understood that
  • 00:46:57
    over time some constraints are going to pop out throughout
  • 00:47:00
    the system. Those are social. When Nodal was first approved,
  • 00:47:05
    there was an order from the commission to also expand
  • 00:47:09
    the transmission throughput into the Dallas Fort Worth area
  • 00:47:12
    because of the pricing. We've seen import constraints in the Houston
  • 00:47:16
    area. We're dealing with issues in the Permian. So you
  • 00:47:19
    have to look over the period over decades and say yes,
  • 00:47:23
    in this particular situation, some consumers benefit and some don't.
  • 00:47:26
    But overall, if you're proactive and aggressive
  • 00:47:30
    in building transmission to support retail choice, everyone benefits
  • 00:47:34
    over the long term. Thank you.
  • 00:47:37
    Okay, thank you. Let's get back to the queue.
  • 00:47:41
    Brian. Samsung Calpine
  • 00:47:45
    would support tabling or we were a
  • 00:47:48
    no at ROS. Continue to be a no on this version of the NPRR.
  • 00:47:53
    Really for the reasons that the white papers just are complete.
  • 00:47:57
    We have concerns that this process
  • 00:48:02
    might allow for double counting of benefits.
  • 00:48:05
    For example, we're seeing big projects in
  • 00:48:09
    the Permian that are probably
  • 00:48:13
    reliability projects or are they are reliability projects to
  • 00:48:17
    and some of the benefits would be to reduce the GTCs
  • 00:48:21
    but then those same benefits are counted, potentially counted for
  • 00:48:25
    some of the economic projects that we see out there. And so there's just
  • 00:48:29
    not good process to ensure that you're not double
  • 00:48:32
    counting benefits. Thank you.
  • 00:48:37
    Thanks Brian. Ned,
  • 00:48:41
    thanks Caitlin and Seth, I wanted to say I appreciate your
  • 00:48:44
    comments and I did want to clarify just in
  • 00:48:48
    case others had read it, the 0.25 multiplier would
  • 00:48:52
    effectively be the same as I think you said the 75% reduction.
  • 00:48:57
    So I think that would get to the same point Seth.
  • 00:49:00
    So I think we are actually trying to hit that right down the middle
  • 00:49:05
    as you suggested and I did also
  • 00:49:09
    Eric, I appreciate your comments and feedback and I
  • 00:49:14
    want to say that this is not necessarily intended by any
  • 00:49:18
    means to be anti transmission really. It's trying to
  • 00:49:22
    find the right balance for where consumer costs lie,
  • 00:49:25
    where you're essentially trading off a call it a soft cost,
  • 00:49:28
    it's a cost that can be hedged in the power markets
  • 00:49:32
    versus a hard cost that cannot be hedged. And it's
  • 00:49:37
    there for a long time in transmission. And we need
  • 00:49:40
    transmission to get goods to market and to serve customers. And so
  • 00:49:44
    getting the right amount of that
  • 00:49:48
    built in the system is important to all of us and it helps the grid
  • 00:49:52
    stamp. But what we're trying to find
  • 00:49:56
    here is a reasonable balance that keeps those two at
  • 00:50:02
    an efficient trade off point. So thank you.
  • 00:50:07
    Thanks Ned. Okay, we have Emily and then Mark,
  • 00:50:10
    Bruce and then after that let's I know Prabhu's here
  • 00:50:14
    to talk about ERCOT comments so let's take those two and then go to the
  • 00:50:17
    ERCOT comments. Emily, go ahead. Thank you Caitlin,
  • 00:50:21
    appreciate the discussion. And this is something obviously a lot
  • 00:50:25
    of folks have raised a lot of important points on and
  • 00:50:28
    we appreciate the commitment from ERCOT and others to continue to evaluate
  • 00:50:32
    this and provide more detail and transparency.
  • 00:50:36
    I do have concerns though with perhaps
  • 00:50:40
    loose associations that aren't necessarily backed up with examples
  • 00:50:45
    about how maybe a perception of what's happening
  • 00:50:48
    in one area could result in additional cost.
  • 00:50:52
    And so specifically Brian, I'm referring to your comment.
  • 00:50:55
    There are certainly challenges
  • 00:51:00
    with the Permian and the Permian plan that ERCOT has put forward
  • 00:51:03
    that I think need, you know, to be looked at, scrutinized. What I'm not aware
  • 00:51:07
    of is any, as you referred to double counting of
  • 00:51:10
    benefit associated with that. If you could provide any specific
  • 00:51:15
    examples that would be helpful for us to understand that critique.
  • 00:51:18
    Sure. I think There's a Lone Star
  • 00:51:21
    project that would claims to reduce West
  • 00:51:26
    Tex GTC as a benefit, and the
  • 00:51:32
    permian plan potential 765
  • 00:51:38
    project, also claims to reduce the
  • 00:51:42
    GTC or eliminate the gtc. So that's the
  • 00:51:45
    same benefit that would be counted twice.
  • 00:51:50
    And if I could just clarify, the Lone Star proposal is not part
  • 00:51:54
    of ERCOT's Permian plan and has not been endorsed by ERCOT
  • 00:51:58
    or the PUC. I agree with your comment there, but my point
  • 00:52:02
    is that there's not, like, evaluation of future transmission
  • 00:52:07
    builds that would be done for reliability, but would
  • 00:52:11
    also claim the same benefit.
  • 00:52:13
    Okay, so all of this brings me to my point and I'll speed
  • 00:52:17
    up. I think you're raising important points and I think
  • 00:52:21
    projects, when they're brought to rpg, like the Lone Star project that's
  • 00:52:25
    currently pending in rpg, need to be evaluated on those criteria
  • 00:52:28
    and need to meet the criteria we're very supportive of of
  • 00:52:32
    ERCOT and stakeholders engaging in that review to ensure that there is consistent
  • 00:52:37
    application of and meeting of the tests for any projects
  • 00:52:41
    that move forward. So appreciate your comments on that.
  • 00:52:45
    What I do think that we all need to understand is how that
  • 00:52:48
    process will play out. And so for one off, projects that are filed at
  • 00:52:51
    the commission, like the Lone Star project, that circumvented RPG
  • 00:52:55
    review, that takes away the opportunity for stakeholders to make
  • 00:52:59
    those evaluations. So we're pleased to see that back at ERCOT,
  • 00:53:03
    with regard to, you know, projects in the Permian plan, I think ERCOT
  • 00:53:06
    has been very transparent and the report and the studies
  • 00:53:10
    that have been filed on that, I think don't necessarily bear
  • 00:53:14
    out the same critique that you've raised. So I do, I do see a distinction
  • 00:53:18
    and want to point that out, but these discussions are important to make sure
  • 00:53:21
    that we all understand the criteria that are being applied and the
  • 00:53:24
    more that ERCOT can provide on that going forward, as they've committed to do,
  • 00:53:28
    I think we'll enhance that discussion. So we appreciate your comments.
  • 00:53:33
    Thanks, Emily. And I wasn't saying speed it up. You know, I think the audience
  • 00:53:37
    is enjoying the back and forth we're having, but I want to
  • 00:53:41
    make sure we get to the people in the queue too. All right,
  • 00:53:46
    let's go to Mark Bruce and then Bob. I didn't see your card,
  • 00:53:49
    so we'll take you before we get to ERCOT's comments too. So, Mark and
  • 00:53:53
    then Bob.
  • 00:53:57
    Hi, Caitlin, this is Mark. Is my audio okay?
  • 00:54:01
    Yes, it is. Great. Yeah. So, Mark Bruce,
  • 00:54:05
    on behalf of Pattern Energy, who is one of the
  • 00:54:08
    joint commenters, on this NPRR through its discussion
  • 00:54:12
    process. And a couple of things.
  • 00:54:15
    Thanks to ERCOT for the compromise
  • 00:54:19
    that they made to amend the intro
  • 00:54:24
    language, the revision reason for revision, to sort of put
  • 00:54:27
    some placeholders down for where this additional methodology
  • 00:54:31
    documentation will be located. I think
  • 00:54:34
    that's just generally helpful. Although we certainly would have
  • 00:54:37
    preferred more language in the protocol
  • 00:54:41
    language itself. Or perhaps, you know, further down
  • 00:54:45
    into the planning guide. We were still
  • 00:54:49
    concerned about an overall lack of transparency,
  • 00:54:52
    even with the white papers that we have. I think to
  • 00:54:56
    echo some of the points raised by Bill Barnes
  • 00:54:59
    and Reliant, I would just say to,
  • 00:55:03
    to Luminance points. I think Luminance comments
  • 00:55:06
    are well taken. They offer some interesting food for thought.
  • 00:55:10
    And it does go to the point that, you know,
  • 00:55:13
    my client has said along the way here that there's been a real
  • 00:55:17
    rush. I mean, after a couple, literally a couple of years
  • 00:55:21
    of, let's just say, low level of
  • 00:55:24
    activity on this, than to sort of drop it and push
  • 00:55:28
    it. It leaves us without the time to have
  • 00:55:31
    the conversations we need. I'm interested in hearing
  • 00:55:35
    the discussion about Luminance comments, but Luminant didn't really
  • 00:55:38
    offer any, you know, supporting data, any calculations around
  • 00:55:42
    that. I think we just need more time to bet that.
  • 00:55:46
    I know, Caitlin, that you're going to urge this
  • 00:55:50
    body to make a decision today. I know there's been some pressure
  • 00:55:53
    from above to deliver something to the board on this at
  • 00:55:57
    their next meeting. And I guess, you know, having done
  • 00:56:01
    my best through the process, my client's been engaged from
  • 00:56:04
    the get go. From its first showing as
  • 00:56:07
    a draft, before it was even filed, we've been trying
  • 00:56:12
    to understand and perfect this very important revision
  • 00:56:16
    request. But to the extent that TAC does feel
  • 00:56:20
    obligated to move along what they have, I would just
  • 00:56:23
    hope they would do so without the Luminant amendments.
  • 00:56:28
    And that, you know, I would pledge, along with many
  • 00:56:31
    of the other proposed amendments of my own, of my clients
  • 00:56:35
    and the joint commenters that got left to the side, that we
  • 00:56:39
    would take all this up in a subsequent planning guide revision request
  • 00:56:43
    and attempt to further perfect this process downstream.
  • 00:56:47
    Thanks. Thanks, Mark.
  • 00:56:51
    I certainly don't want to predetermine the vote,
  • 00:56:54
    but, you know, the commission staff is here. I'll let them speak if
  • 00:56:57
    they want to. We were sort of setting up a route
  • 00:57:01
    so that we could have this approved by the board
  • 00:57:05
    by the end of the year. You know, unfortunately, the way the calendar is,
  • 00:57:08
    this is our last TAC meeting of the year.
  • 00:57:13
    So we reminded people of the timeline that could
  • 00:57:16
    get things done by this year, but certainly not going to dictate,
  • 00:57:20
    you know, if people need more time. I'm not going to dictate what the vote
  • 00:57:24
    is or the outcome of the vote.
  • 00:57:29
    Right, Bob? Yeah, just real quickly.
  • 00:57:33
    Yeah, this isn't perfect, but I think we do need to look at
  • 00:57:36
    moving something on. This isn't
  • 00:57:40
    the end of the road. This is the beginning. And I
  • 00:57:43
    think there's a lot of things that we will be doing moving forward to
  • 00:57:47
    try to try to perfect this and get it better and better as we
  • 00:57:51
    go forward. So I think we do need to move something today.
  • 00:57:55
    Now I do have a question for Ned
  • 00:57:58
    on your proposal for the haircut. Basically what
  • 00:58:02
    you're talking about there, were you planning on that?
  • 00:58:05
    Sorry, thought I muted that. Are you planning
  • 00:58:09
    on that just being hard coded in there? And that's going to be there forever
  • 00:58:12
    until we get a new, a new revision
  • 00:58:16
    through to change that particular piece. Or were you looking at
  • 00:58:19
    that to be some sunsetted date to while we
  • 00:58:22
    could try to figure out the rest of the process that would no longer need
  • 00:58:26
    that. What were your thoughts on that piece?
  • 00:58:37
    I can respond in the queue or I can go now.
  • 00:58:41
    Go ahead, please. Go ahead and respond, Ned. Okay, sure. Thanks.
  • 00:58:45
    So Bob, I think that's a good question.
  • 00:58:47
    And Mark, the comments you made I think are also well
  • 00:58:51
    taken. The way we think about this is it is
  • 00:58:55
    a way to avoid do
  • 00:58:59
    no harm approach where we
  • 00:59:03
    know that we're not going to err on the side of adding
  • 00:59:07
    additional costs that cannot be hedged by consumers
  • 00:59:12
    in the near term. But I think there's probably
  • 00:59:16
    recognition that a hard coated haircut is not the
  • 00:59:19
    ideal. I think I'm hearing from everybody that
  • 00:59:23
    we would all like to have more time to look at this. And so that's
  • 00:59:27
    why we think of this as a compromise is it gives us a path forward
  • 00:59:31
    that gets something to the board by the end of the year.
  • 00:59:35
    But we fully recognize there's a lot of folks that probably are
  • 00:59:39
    not going to be satisfied with a hard coded 0.25 multiplier.
  • 00:59:43
    And so that should help to keep
  • 00:59:46
    everyone back at the table and coming back to look at it and hopefully
  • 00:59:51
    come forward with a replacement down the line that has had the benefit of additional
  • 00:59:55
    discussion.
  • 01:00:00
    Okay, did that answer your question, Bob? All right,
  • 01:00:05
    Barksdale. Thanks,
  • 01:00:07
    Caitlin. I guess just to make sure it's clear
  • 01:00:13
    what commission staff's point of view is on the timing
  • 01:00:17
    of tax decision on
  • 01:00:21
    1247,
  • 01:00:24
    you know, when I made comments back in September,
  • 01:00:27
    from our perception there had been a log jam of
  • 01:00:31
    activity, which I understand was related to the
  • 01:00:35
    timing of the release of the white paper. And so staff is very thankful
  • 01:00:38
    to ERCOT staff for moving that forward and
  • 01:00:42
    thankful to the stakeholders for taking up
  • 01:00:45
    the debate diligently upon the release of that
  • 01:00:49
    white paper. And these conversations have been helpful to flesh out the
  • 01:00:53
    pros and the cons of moving something forward.
  • 01:00:56
    Caitlin said it very astutely a couple minutes ago. I don't think staff
  • 01:01:01
    is wanting to predetermine an outcome today,
  • 01:01:05
    but we note that this is the implementation
  • 01:01:09
    of legislation and implementation of a commission rule.
  • 01:01:14
    And having been part of the stakeholder process off
  • 01:01:18
    and on for a long time, I know sometimes we can get hung up on
  • 01:01:21
    letting perfect be the enemy of the good. And we
  • 01:01:24
    know this is the 1247 revision
  • 01:01:28
    to the nodal protocols. We always have the opportunity to go back
  • 01:01:32
    and get it a little bit more perfect next time.
  • 01:01:35
    So if tax decision today is to
  • 01:01:39
    table it and continue to work through the issues, and that's the decision of this
  • 01:01:43
    body and you know,
  • 01:01:47
    I think staff would urge you to try to find resolution
  • 01:01:51
    as quickly as possible.
  • 01:01:54
    The legislature comes into town in 60 short days.
  • 01:01:58
    Thanks. Okay,
  • 01:02:02
    thank you, Barksdale. So I said I would take ERCOT's
  • 01:02:05
    comments. So let's do that and then we'll go back. Back to the queue.
  • 01:02:11
    Yeah. Thank you. This is Prabhu Gnanam.
  • 01:02:13
    So I hear the comments. So one thing I
  • 01:02:17
    wanted to go back is this
  • 01:02:20
    process has been going on for more than a year and a half
  • 01:02:24
    or more. Back in 2023,
  • 01:02:27
    when we hired E3 to work on this
  • 01:02:30
    recommendation, they came up with the recommendation and we had
  • 01:02:34
    multiple discussions, stakeholders discussions discuss these
  • 01:02:38
    issues. As you may note,
  • 01:02:41
    some of the issues raised here related to
  • 01:02:45
    whether to account for partial hedging of the
  • 01:02:49
    cost by load customers. Those issues were
  • 01:02:53
    discussed and even in the report. If you
  • 01:02:56
    could look at section 4.2.4,
  • 01:03:00
    there is a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of including such
  • 01:03:05
    discount factors and others. So based on the
  • 01:03:08
    recommendation, the current recommendation from E3, there are
  • 01:03:12
    a number of things that was highlighted especially related to this issue.
  • 01:03:16
    ERCOT tried to capture those things in our comments. Latest Comments those
  • 01:03:20
    are pretty much what was stated in the E3 recommendation or
  • 01:03:24
    the report. The fundamental
  • 01:03:28
    issue here is what, when we looked at this issue
  • 01:03:31
    is E3 recommended that we do not
  • 01:03:34
    have sufficient data at this point to isolate
  • 01:03:38
    those CRR payments that occur for the load customers only.
  • 01:03:42
    So that was the bottleneck
  • 01:03:46
    right now and if you look at the report, the report clearly
  • 01:03:50
    identifies this as an issue and recommends that it
  • 01:03:54
    will be useful for the ERCOT and the stakeholders to review
  • 01:03:58
    this available data over the course of several
  • 01:04:02
    next few years and then come
  • 01:04:06
    up with the recommendation such that we could decide to include
  • 01:04:10
    or make further adjustments to
  • 01:04:14
    include any discount factor or potentially modify this.
  • 01:04:18
    So based on that recommendation,
  • 01:04:22
    E3 recommended at this point they think the
  • 01:04:26
    system wide gross load test as the best option that would fit the
  • 01:04:30
    rules and structures of the current ERCOT market.
  • 01:04:34
    So with that I'm going to stop. And also just
  • 01:04:38
    the process wise, I understand this is we are trying to get this congestion
  • 01:04:42
    cost metric done, but as I said, we have
  • 01:04:46
    had several discussions in the stakeholders process.
  • 01:04:49
    I know the timing of the white paper which was added at the
  • 01:04:52
    end, but these are all the things that has been discussed through
  • 01:04:55
    the stakeholders. E3 had several presentations,
  • 01:04:59
    discussions. So subsequent. One thing that is not highlighted
  • 01:05:02
    in the process is after E3 made the recommendation,
  • 01:05:07
    ERCOT has to work on his tools and capabilities to make
  • 01:05:10
    sure we could implement this new congestion cost test.
  • 01:05:13
    So that was, ERCOT was working on that to make sure
  • 01:05:17
    we had the tools and capabilities to implement this before we could submit
  • 01:05:20
    this revision request. So with that
  • 01:05:24
    I'm going to stop. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Let's go to Naba.
  • 01:05:31
    So I have, I have a question for imm. So Zeff
  • 01:05:35
    is here. Can you, can you elaborate a little bit
  • 01:05:39
    in detail why you support things like that?
  • 01:05:44
    Well, to be clear, we supported in concept the
  • 01:05:48
    idea of having more information in the
  • 01:05:52
    transmission assessment process. So through
  • 01:05:55
    these conversations and chatting with one of my
  • 01:05:59
    colleagues, I think should this. Other details
  • 01:06:03
    have come to our attention during this conversation. Should this get
  • 01:06:08
    remanded back to a, to a working group or a subcommittee,
  • 01:06:12
    we would get involved and do a more in depth assessment.
  • 01:06:16
    Our support of it was based on the principle of
  • 01:06:20
    generally speaking, more information is better than less
  • 01:06:23
    information in your assessment process.
  • 01:06:29
    So you don't have a full information right
  • 01:06:33
    now? Not based on some of the conversation
  • 01:06:37
    that's taking place today.
  • 01:06:42
    Okay. All right.
  • 01:06:45
    Richard?
  • 01:06:49
    Yeah, Caitlin? I mean we're ready,
  • 01:06:53
    I'm ready for us to take a step forward. We have been,
  • 01:06:56
    as Prabhu said, talking about this revision request for quite some
  • 01:07:00
    time. We do need to get something on the books
  • 01:07:04
    related to complying and meeting the needs that we
  • 01:07:08
    were given by the legislature.
  • 01:07:13
    I have several comments that I would love to make back to some of the
  • 01:07:17
    things that have been said today. But rather than extending the
  • 01:07:20
    debate, I'm going to hold those things back and eagerly
  • 01:07:26
    be prepared for a follow on discussion as we, as we
  • 01:07:30
    have subsequent revisions to try to address some of these areas
  • 01:07:33
    of concern. But I don't think it's appropriate given the
  • 01:07:37
    time we have to get something done in the time period we
  • 01:07:41
    need to get it done to dive into those things today.
  • 01:07:45
    I think this is a substantial step in the right direction.
  • 01:07:48
    I know that we felt like we should have gone even farther
  • 01:07:52
    than is expressed here, but we have been very supportive
  • 01:07:56
    of what ERCOT's brought forward because we think it's a
  • 01:08:00
    substantial step in the right direction beyond what we've been doing historically.
  • 01:08:04
    And so we're eager to move forward. And when if you need a motion and
  • 01:08:07
    when you're ready for it, I will be prepared to make that for you.
  • 01:08:13
    You know, I'll quote Barksdale quoting myself,
  • 01:08:16
    we're not going to predetermine. So I'm happy for you to make
  • 01:08:20
    whatever motion you would would like to make when you'd like to make it.
  • 01:08:25
    I muted myself. Sorry.
  • 01:08:28
    I would, I would, I would, as ERCOT has suggested,
  • 01:08:32
    move to approve as recommended.
  • 01:08:34
    Are there any other comment? I mean I know that I think all the
  • 01:08:39
    comments that got made or the revisions that were made
  • 01:08:42
    necessary to incorporate the white paper made it into the recommendation report and
  • 01:08:46
    I'm getting the head nod. So my motion is that we approve is recommended
  • 01:08:51
    by prs. Okay, by prs. Thank you. Is, is there a second
  • 01:08:54
    to Richard's motion? Okay,
  • 01:08:58
    second by Jose. All right, let's. We can finish taking
  • 01:09:02
    the queue though. So we will go to
  • 01:09:06
    Bill Barnes. Yeah, I just mainly wanted to ask
  • 01:09:09
    ERCOT, when do you think we're going to
  • 01:09:13
    start to discuss some of these large load issues that are impacting
  • 01:09:17
    these processes? The 6.9 where we
  • 01:09:21
    site, where we determine where we place generation. I think some
  • 01:09:25
    are concerns is that we start to approve transmission projects
  • 01:09:28
    through this adopted policy where we don't have a full clear picture
  • 01:09:32
    on how that works. So I appreciate ERCOT's thoughts on where
  • 01:09:36
    and when you plan to start teeing these discussions up for stakeholders.
  • 01:09:40
    Thanks. A comment.
  • 01:09:45
    Go ahead. This is Prabhu Gnanam.
  • 01:09:48
    We are this as I mentioned in this
  • 01:09:52
    previous discussions at ROS and other places, this issue
  • 01:09:56
    of, you know, where we don't have sufficient generators
  • 01:10:00
    to model in the future. This is not just limited to this congestion cost test.
  • 01:10:04
    This is a broader issue in planning which we have made some
  • 01:10:08
    assumptions moving into this year because of all this significant
  • 01:10:13
    increase in load. So we are working on
  • 01:10:17
    addressing this revisiting the section of
  • 01:10:20
    the Planning Edge 6.9 where it clearly lays out what are the
  • 01:10:24
    current rules to include additional generation in
  • 01:10:28
    the case. So we are working on
  • 01:10:31
    a PGRR which is, you know, it's still internal
  • 01:10:35
    to ERCOT, but I anticipate to have those brought to
  • 01:10:38
    the stakeholders sometime early next year. I would say like
  • 01:10:42
    January timeframe and it'll go through the normal stakeholder process.
  • 01:10:46
    We will bring to PLWG for discussions and
  • 01:10:49
    then subsequently it will go to the other stakeholders group and
  • 01:10:53
    I'll be more than happy to bring it to any others. You know,
  • 01:10:57
    we will try to bring that, that PGRR or concept before we
  • 01:11:00
    file the PGRR. So we could just give a, you know, preview of what,
  • 01:11:04
    what we are planning to file. Thanks.
  • 01:11:07
    Yeah, you're welcome.
  • 01:11:10
    Okay, Ned.
  • 01:11:15
    Thanks, Caitlin. And you know, I,
  • 01:11:19
    you know, Richard, I recognize that, you know,
  • 01:11:23
    I think your motion is based on the fact that there's been some activity that
  • 01:11:26
    has been going on this for some time,
  • 01:11:30
    but realistically the actual proposal
  • 01:11:34
    has just hit us in the last three
  • 01:11:37
    months. And so I've heard from a
  • 01:11:41
    lot of folks, and even including some folks that probably don't agree with
  • 01:11:45
    Luminant on the substance of
  • 01:11:49
    what we've put out there, that there still needs to be
  • 01:11:53
    some additional discussion to get this right.
  • 01:11:56
    And you know, while I could support Luminance comments,
  • 01:12:00
    I would be willing to endorse those as a way to move forward.
  • 01:12:03
    I cannot vote in favor of moving the PRS
  • 01:12:07
    report forward. So I would like to
  • 01:12:11
    recognize what I've heard from a lot of my colleagues today,
  • 01:12:14
    which is we can probably still make some
  • 01:12:18
    progress and have, and make some further perfections
  • 01:12:22
    to this in relatively short order,
  • 01:12:26
    recognizing that there is significant interest in seeing progress.
  • 01:12:30
    And I'd go so far as to say to have something
  • 01:12:33
    back to the ERCOT board in February. So really we've only
  • 01:12:38
    missed two months. And with that in mind,
  • 01:12:43
    I would actually like to offer a motion to Tate.
  • 01:12:47
    Okay, is there a second to Luminant?
  • 01:12:52
    Motion to table.
  • 01:12:56
    Okay, second from Brian Sams.
  • 01:13:03
    All right, Corey, so we take up the motion to table first,
  • 01:13:06
    Correct? You got it. Motion table passes. It's tabled.
  • 01:13:10
    If the motion to table fails, we'll go back to Richard's motion to recommend
  • 01:13:14
    approval as sent by PRS. Okay, I don't see
  • 01:13:18
    any further comments. Okay, go ahead.
  • 01:13:21
    I just wanted to ask Ned just to say. He may have just said
  • 01:13:25
    it. I just missed. What is he hoping to get
  • 01:13:29
    accomplished? Is there, is there a,
  • 01:13:33
    is there some kind of product that, that we
  • 01:13:37
    would have before the next meeting.
  • 01:13:41
    So, Eric, I think that there's probably a couple tracks
  • 01:13:45
    on that. One is, you know, getting some additional detail
  • 01:13:49
    from the white paper potentially into the,
  • 01:13:52
    into the revision request, because we don't have a white paper revision request process.
  • 01:13:56
    And clearly the, you know, the details of that white paper are
  • 01:14:01
    important and have real world consequences that stakeholders are
  • 01:14:05
    very cognizant of. So that's, that's one track.
  • 01:14:08
    I think another track is,
  • 01:14:11
    you know, looking further at this,
  • 01:14:15
    at the gross load reduction,
  • 01:14:18
    seeing if there's a way to find an interim value that
  • 01:14:21
    is perhaps more acceptable to stakeholders
  • 01:14:25
    than the 0.25% multiplier the Luminant
  • 01:14:29
    put together. And I'll be the first to admit it was a, it was a
  • 01:14:32
    quick response because we're trying to respond on a, you know,
  • 01:14:36
    a fast tracked proposal, but we'd
  • 01:14:39
    be happy to put some more, sharpen the pencil on
  • 01:14:43
    that and have a more robust discussion and see if there's
  • 01:14:46
    a more appropriate way to address the shortcomings
  • 01:14:51
    of the gross load cost test that, you know,
  • 01:14:54
    E3s report highlighted and walking
  • 01:15:00
    through the comments recognized. So I think that
  • 01:15:04
    would be the intent is to at least hit those two items.
  • 01:15:14
    Okay. Does that answer your question,
  • 01:15:18
    Eric?
  • 01:15:21
    All right. Okay. I think we are good.
  • 01:15:25
    So, Corey, this is the motion to table NPRR1247,
  • 01:15:29
    right? Yes, ma'am. All right. On the motion to table
  • 01:15:32
    right? Yes, ma'am. All right. On the motion to table
  • 01:15:35
    1247, we will start up with consumers with Naba for Eric. Yes,
  • 01:15:39
    thank you. Naba. Yes, thank you. Garrett?
  • 01:15:43
    No, thank you. Eric Schubert? No,
  • 01:15:47
    thank you. Mark Dreyfus. Thanks,
  • 01:15:50
    sir. Nick. Thank you. On to our co
  • 01:15:54
    ops. Mike? No, thank you. Emily.
  • 01:15:58
    For Blake? No, thank you. Eric. Blakey?
  • 01:16:01
    No, thank you. John? No, thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:16:04
    On to our independent generators. Brian? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:08
    Caitlin? Yes, thank you. Bob Helton? Yes,
  • 01:16:11
    thanks, sir. Ned? That would be. Yes, thank you, sir. Thanks,
  • 01:16:15
    sir. On to our ipms. Reshmi? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:18
    Jeremy? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Ian. Abstain.
  • 01:16:21
    Thank you. Gotcha. Thank you.
  • 01:16:25
    On to our IREPs. Bill? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:28
    Jennifer? Yes, thank you. Jay?
  • 01:16:37
    No, can you hear me? I can hear you. Now. I got your. No,
  • 01:16:40
    thanks, Jay. Chris? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:16:44
    On to our IOUs. Keith?
  • 01:16:49
    Okay, I got your. No, in chat. Keith. Thank you. David?
  • 01:16:53
    No, thank you. Thank you. Colin? No, thank you.
  • 01:16:56
    Richard. Thank you. On to our munis. Russell?
  • 01:17:00
    No, thanks, sir. Jose? No,
  • 01:17:04
    thank you. David? No, thank you. Annalisha? No,
  • 01:17:07
    thank you. Motion table fails
  • 01:17:11
    40% for 60% against one abstention.
  • 01:17:17
    Okay, so that will take us back to Richard
  • 01:17:21
    and Jose's motion. That is correct.
  • 01:17:24
    And give me a second. I'll get that. We'll give you 30 seconds.
  • 01:17:59
    And just like that, we are back to Richard's motion to
  • 01:18:02
    recommend approval of 1247 as recommended by PRS in last
  • 01:18:06
    week's PRS report.
  • 01:18:10
    Yeah, they're ready to hit it.
  • 01:18:13
    On this motion, we will start back up with the consumers with Naba
  • 01:18:17
    for Eric.
  • 01:18:20
    Can you call my name at the very end?
  • 01:18:24
    Sure. Garrett. Yes, sir.
  • 01:18:28
    Thanks, sir. Eric? Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:18:31
    Mark Dreyfus. Thank you. Nick? Yes,
  • 01:18:34
    thank you, thank you. On to our co-ops.
  • 01:18:37
    Mike Weiss. Yes, thank you. Emily for
  • 01:18:41
    Blake. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Eric. Blakey? Yes,
  • 01:18:44
    thanks. Thank you. John? Yes, thank you. On to our independent
  • 01:18:47
    generators. Brian Sams. No, thank you. Caitlin?
  • 01:18:51
    Yes, thank you. Bob Elton. Yes,
  • 01:18:54
    sir. Thanks, sir. Ned. Respectfully. No, thank you.
  • 01:18:57
    Corey. Thanks. Respectfully, I thank you, sir. Hondura IPM
  • 01:19:01
    is Rashmi. No, no, thank you.
  • 01:19:04
    Jeremy? Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:19:07
    Ian. Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you. On our IREPs
  • 01:19:11
    Bill. Abstain,
  • 01:19:14
    respectfully. All right, thanks, sir.
  • 01:19:17
    Jennifer? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:19:21
    Jay? Yes, thank you, thank you. Chris?
  • 01:19:24
    Yes, thank you. On to our IOUs. Keith,
  • 01:19:29
    got your yes in chat. Keith. Thank you. David? Yes, thank you, thank you.
  • 01:19:33
    Colin? Yes, thank you. Richard. Yes, thanks, sir. On to
  • 01:19:36
    our munis. Russell. Yes, sir. Thanks, sir.
  • 01:19:40
    Jose? Yes, thank you. David? Yes, thank you, thank you.
  • 01:19:43
    Annalisha? Yes, respectfully, thank you. Thank you so much.
  • 01:19:47
    All right. And drumroll please. Naba for Eric.
  • 01:19:49
    Yes. And then Naba. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:19:53
    Motion carries 89% for three nos and one abstention.
  • 01:19:57
    Thank you. Caitlin, can I have a
  • 01:20:00
    moment? Sure. So you know,
  • 01:20:04
    just so we know, we remember, we're all sitting around the
  • 01:20:07
    adult table and collaborating so. Well, I've been
  • 01:20:11
    remiss because much earlier in this year I had. I made up my
  • 01:20:15
    mind that I needed to award one of our members a Richard Ross gold
  • 01:20:19
    star and it was for being
  • 01:20:22
    a TAC member machine. And I do
  • 01:20:26
    want to apologize to him that it is wrinkled and I promise it is
  • 01:20:29
    not wrinkled because I wadded it up when you were making
  • 01:20:33
    comments today. But I do want to of recognized
  • 01:20:37
    Ned because if y'all will remember,
  • 01:20:41
    he was reading comments up until 02:00 in the morning that I think
  • 01:20:44
    Eric had submitted on another tough subject we were dealing with. And so Ned,
  • 01:20:49
    in spite of our disagreement, I really do appreciate everything you
  • 01:20:53
    do for the discussion because I think it's important we have a good collaborative discussion.
  • 01:20:56
    And so I have your Richard Rossgold star
  • 01:21:00
    as well as the certificate of authenticity. And it
  • 01:21:04
    does come in time for you to put this in your performance appraisal for this
  • 01:21:07
    year, I hope. Thank you. Much appreciated,
  • 01:21:11
    Richard, and appreciate your collaboration.
  • 01:21:14
    Do you have a speech prepared? Ned, even when we disagree,
  • 01:21:18
    it's important that we have a good discussion. So thank you.
  • 01:21:21
    Speechless. Okay, well, we will keep moving.
  • 01:21:25
    Well, maybe we will. Diana,
  • 01:21:28
    are we finished with the report? There was some conversation at the end of
  • 01:21:32
    PRS if we needed to have a discuss and we will have a December
  • 01:21:35
    meeting for prs if that will be remote
  • 01:21:38
    or in person. We haven't decided yet. But just to let folks know, we will
  • 01:21:41
    have a PRS meeting in December. Okay,
  • 01:21:45
    thank you, Diana. So I'm being told
  • 01:21:49
    lunch is here. Do we want to take a 10 minute break and
  • 01:21:52
    go get it and come back?
  • 01:21:55
    Okay, let's, let's do that. So let's, let's just
  • 01:21:59
    come back at 12:30 because we started late and then start
  • 01:22:03
    working through lunch.
  • 01:23:17
    All right, let's go ahead and get back started.
  • 01:23:21
    Bob Hilton, we've got Agee Springer on to respond
  • 01:23:25
    to your earlier question. So ag,
  • 01:23:28
    if you're available,
  • 01:23:31
    we need Bob to restate his question or request.
  • 01:23:35
    Yeah, I just want to check on the date for the next network model
  • 01:23:39
    because I know there's a schedule out there and I just don't have it with
  • 01:23:43
    me. So. So Bob,
  • 01:23:47
    if I'm understanding your question correctly,
  • 01:23:50
    I think this maybe follows along the line of some
  • 01:23:54
    of the discussion that was had at the September PRS.
  • 01:23:58
    You know, I think there was a concern expressed by some stakeholders
  • 01:24:01
    that this not be implemented in a way that
  • 01:24:05
    projects that would be eligible for a
  • 01:24:09
    production load date under the current three month calendar would suddenly become
  • 01:24:12
    ineligible. And ERCOT was comfortable with
  • 01:24:16
    that approach. I think we were looking at a March 1 implementation
  • 01:24:21
    date. So that would be the first month that
  • 01:24:24
    the new deadline would be in effect.
  • 01:24:27
    Okay, and so then. So you're looking
  • 01:24:30
    at March 1st is what you're looking at, right? Somewhere around
  • 01:24:34
    there? Yes. Okay. All right, good, thanks.
  • 01:24:37
    Thank you.
  • 01:24:41
    Thanks Agee for circling back to that topic.
  • Item 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith
    01:24:45
    All right, let's move on to gen item number six, revision request table
  • Item 6.1 - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
    01:24:48
    to attach. The first item that we have is
  • 01:24:51
    NPRR1180. And we've had a couple of sets of comments filed
  • 01:24:57
    here in the last couple of days. We'll start with the November
  • 01:25:00
    18th OPUC comments. Would someone from OPUC like to
  • 01:25:04
    walk us through those?
  • 01:25:07
    Sure.
  • 01:25:16
    First of all, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak
  • 01:25:20
    on this NPRR1180 OPUC filed
  • 01:25:24
    two set of comments on 1118 and 1119 on
  • 01:25:28
    the supplemental comment. I don't want to read
  • 01:25:32
    everything in there, but I'd like to highlight
  • 01:25:37
    a few important things there.
  • 01:25:40
    First of all, OPUC supports the legislative intent
  • 01:25:44
    of building and investing transmission line
  • 01:25:48
    in some specific areas. However,
  • 01:25:51
    OPUC stress the importance of ensuring
  • 01:25:55
    that the load projection used for planning are
  • 01:25:59
    as accurate as possible. If this is
  • 01:26:03
    not addressed today, there is a risk
  • 01:26:06
    of unintended consequences, particularly if
  • 01:26:10
    load studies are not thorough or accurate.
  • 01:26:15
    While building transmission to meet actual load is necessary,
  • 01:26:20
    overbuilding of transmission could result in unnecessary
  • 01:26:23
    cost that would ultimately be borne by residential
  • 01:26:27
    consumers. In light of these concerns,
  • 01:26:33
    OPUC proposed.
  • 01:26:36
    Can you please 19th comment
  • 01:26:40
    please?
  • 01:26:43
    19th. Oh, can you go a little bit down?
  • 01:26:49
    Yeah, that one. Right. Yeah. So. So in, in light of these
  • 01:26:53
    concerns, OPUC proposed the following. Revising the
  • 01:26:57
    substantiated load definition in 103024
  • 01:27:02
    TAC report as reflected in the screen.
  • 01:27:06
    OPUC believe that this language change is the middle ground for
  • 01:27:09
    stakeholders. If you
  • 01:27:13
    all like it, please speak up. Thank you.
  • 01:27:21
    Thank you. Naba. I see. Mark, go ahead.
  • 01:27:28
    Thank you, Chair.
  • 01:27:31
    We had a lengthy discussion about this NPRR last month
  • 01:27:36
    and I agree with Naba in part that consumers
  • 01:27:40
    support this NPRR because there's,
  • 01:27:44
    as we all know, tremendous growth within our system
  • 01:27:48
    and expanding transmission. Having a
  • 01:27:51
    process to expand transmission into
  • 01:27:55
    those areas of growth is good for consumers.
  • 01:28:01
    We discussed this issue last month of validation
  • 01:28:05
    and I repeat what I said
  • 01:28:09
    then, if I can find it on my computer that the commission rule
  • 01:28:13
    contemplates that we will have validation where it
  • 01:28:17
    says the forecasted load growth and additional load currently seeking
  • 01:28:20
    interconnection must be substantiated by quantifiable
  • 01:28:24
    evidence of projected load growth. I think that validation
  • 01:28:30
    and substantiation is an important step in this process.
  • 01:28:34
    But as I said last month, I think this NPRR is ready to
  • 01:28:38
    go if,
  • 01:28:41
    and I believe there's a lot of projects waiting to
  • 01:28:45
    have this process in place and we need to get moving on those projects.
  • 01:28:50
    And so I support having
  • 01:28:56
    a step as OPUC is
  • 01:29:00
    proposing to conduct that validation, but I
  • 01:29:03
    think we can put more meat on these bones and have
  • 01:29:07
    a clearer process. So what I'd like to do is
  • 01:29:10
    move forward with the NPRR today as recommended by the prs,
  • 01:29:14
    but with a commitment from all of us that there will be
  • 01:29:18
    a follow up revision request that
  • 01:29:22
    will drill down into this validation process, especially as
  • 01:29:26
    where we're going to start the forecasted load and officer letter
  • 01:29:30
    process for the second time. Next year. Thanks.
  • 01:29:36
    Thanks Mark. I see Bob and resume in the queue and then after
  • 01:29:39
    that I'm going to go to Martha to walk through the Oncor comments. Yeah,
  • 01:29:44
    that is really vague and I'm not sure what that means
  • 01:29:47
    and what you would do to really comply with that. So that's what
  • 01:29:51
    concerns concerns me a little bit. So I'm kind of in the camp
  • 01:29:54
    with Mark that I think this would confuse the issue to some
  • 01:29:57
    degree and you don't know what and who's going to
  • 01:30:01
    make a final then does that mean that there's going
  • 01:30:05
    to be a determination attestation sake put in and says this is real load
  • 01:30:09
    then there's going to be some kind of documentation behind that. We don't know
  • 01:30:12
    what it is or have any criteria around it and then ERCOT or somebody
  • 01:30:16
    is going to say yes, I agree.
  • 01:30:21
    I'm just not sure how this all works. So I'm with
  • 01:30:25
    Mark on this. I think we need to move ahead without that in there and
  • 01:30:28
    then circle up with several of the things that we know we've got to do.
  • 01:30:32
    I think there were some meetings that said there's going to be some additional work
  • 01:30:36
    to be done on some of the parameters around this that we
  • 01:30:39
    were looking at and talked about last month.
  • 01:30:43
    I think we need to move ahead with the way PR has it.
  • 01:30:48
    Reshmi so thank
  • 01:30:51
    you for the work that has been done in this NPRR
  • 01:30:55
    by all of the stakeholders. We are one of the companies who
  • 01:30:59
    had significant concerns with this and wanted
  • 01:31:03
    to have this table last month.
  • 01:31:08
    We still do have significant
  • 01:31:12
    concerns with the transparency and standardization of
  • 01:31:16
    the process and feel that having
  • 01:31:21
    transparency and standardization of the attestation
  • 01:31:25
    is very important for the market to
  • 01:31:29
    be able to bring the resources,
  • 01:31:33
    dispatchable resources, resources needed to reliably serve
  • 01:31:36
    this load.
  • 01:31:40
    That being said,
  • 01:31:44
    the transparency will allow the market to
  • 01:31:49
    evaluate the potential for this load coming and then that
  • 01:31:53
    will help them evaluate the risk of investing in this generation.
  • 01:31:58
    So all
  • 01:32:02
    of those I think it is good for everyone in
  • 01:32:05
    the stakeholder process. So all of that being said,
  • 01:32:09
    we have had multiple
  • 01:32:13
    calls with TDSPs in the
  • 01:32:16
    last three weeks and even though we
  • 01:32:21
    would really want to see a
  • 01:32:25
    language change to say that the TDSP attestation is
  • 01:32:29
    standardized, we do understand that process
  • 01:32:35
    might take longer time and it may be PUCT change
  • 01:32:39
    or legislative change. So because
  • 01:32:43
    we have gotten assurance from TDSPs
  • 01:32:48
    like Oncor, Centerpoint, AP,
  • 01:32:51
    LCRA, TNMP and all to work
  • 01:32:54
    with us the market to figure
  • 01:32:58
    out how this can be standardized and
  • 01:33:02
    how the transparency can be improved,
  • 01:33:06
    we are not going to be opposed to
  • 01:33:09
    this NPRR. And we
  • 01:33:13
    really look forward to working with you all. And that
  • 01:33:17
    means that we are very, very appreciative of
  • 01:33:21
    all the effort put in by Oncor for arranging
  • 01:33:26
    all those calls and filing the comments
  • 01:33:29
    to officially say that all
  • 01:33:34
    the TDS piece will work with the market. So wanted
  • 01:33:38
    to express that appreciation and state
  • 01:33:41
    our stance. Thank you. Thank you, Rashmi. I think this is probably
  • 01:33:45
    a good time to ask Martha to run through the encoder. Then we
  • 01:33:48
    can come back to the queue that we have. I think there
  • 01:33:51
    is Michelle on the chat.
  • 01:33:55
    I can just go in the Q order. Colin, I think there's a couple folks.
  • 01:33:58
    Michelle, thanks. Can you
  • 01:34:02
    all hear me? Loud and clear.
  • 01:34:05
    Great. Appreciate it. TCPA filed comments
  • 01:34:09
    for the last meeting, and we have
  • 01:34:12
    had several meetings with Oncor and
  • 01:34:16
    the other TDSPs. I think our
  • 01:34:20
    members are very comfortable with the commitment that they have
  • 01:34:24
    made, they being the TDSPs,
  • 01:34:27
    to work with us on transparency and some standardization.
  • 01:34:31
    And the discussion we've had for the benefit of
  • 01:34:35
    the rest of y'all in the room, is that
  • 01:34:39
    Oncor and the TDSPs are going to work on
  • 01:34:42
    a strawman proposal for another NPRR are
  • 01:34:46
    that would address those things. And we'll work together
  • 01:34:50
    on that. Probably looking at the beginning of the new year,
  • 01:34:53
    just given everything that's going on and the holidays
  • 01:34:57
    coming up. And so I think we are very comfortable with moving this
  • 01:35:00
    forward, given that commitment
  • 01:35:04
    and the really good discussions
  • 01:35:08
    that we have been having. Just really wanted to thank
  • 01:35:12
    Oncor in particular for spearheading that with
  • 01:35:16
    us as well as the other TDSPs
  • 01:35:19
    for working with us on this. And I think we will get to a really
  • 01:35:22
    good place. But just wanted to make sure that y'all
  • 01:35:26
    were aware that we are fine with moving this forward.
  • 01:35:34
    Thank you, Michelle. Thanks,
  • 01:35:38
    Dawn. Can you hear me?
  • 01:35:42
    Unclear. Okay, thank you.
  • 01:35:46
    Well, Michelle, I think you put it fairly well. And, you know,
  • 01:35:49
    I wanted, I did want to say, Naba, you know, I certainly appreciate
  • 01:35:53
    the intent behind opuc's comments.
  • 01:35:56
    And I think what you've heard from a lot of
  • 01:35:59
    folks is that we all want to have, you know,
  • 01:36:03
    additional transparency and confidence and what
  • 01:36:07
    we see in that forecast. And I think Oncor's
  • 01:36:11
    comments and their commitment to that process is very
  • 01:36:14
    encouraging and so also want to echo the appreciation
  • 01:36:18
    to them and the rest of the TDSPs for coming together to
  • 01:36:22
    have that discussion. And I think that's
  • 01:36:25
    a good path forward. I did actually have one question
  • 01:36:29
    to put up for folks, and this is in the related and
  • 01:36:33
    I hope this isn't going too far out of. But as I'm reading
  • 01:36:36
    The related PGRR107, you know, I see that
  • 01:36:40
    there is some language in there that says that, you know, when a
  • 01:36:44
    pro. An actual project comes that's proposed,
  • 01:36:48
    it has, it's recommended that it have additional information to
  • 01:36:51
    support the substantiated load in
  • 01:36:55
    there. And so I was just curious if I'm
  • 01:36:58
    correctly reading those two together to also kind of point to the same,
  • 01:37:03
    the same outcome, which is,
  • 01:37:07
    you know, we take the attested load and we all agree that
  • 01:37:10
    we want to get some additional clarity and transparency in that. But when
  • 01:37:14
    the rubber hits the road, there's also another chance for the
  • 01:37:19
    regional planning group to take a closer look at some of that
  • 01:37:23
    information. But overall, just wanted to
  • 01:37:27
    say appreciate the conversation so far and
  • 01:37:31
    then just toss that one question up because I thought I'd read it that
  • 01:37:34
    way, but wasn't sure.
  • 01:37:37
    Thanks, Ned. ERCOT or Prabhu, would you like to respond
  • 01:37:41
    to that?
  • 01:37:45
    Yeah, the question
  • 01:37:49
    regarding the PGRR or which one? Correct.
  • 01:37:53
    Yeah, how to read the two in combination. Because I think
  • 01:37:57
    in combination it may help address some of the questions
  • 01:38:02
    that folks have raised. So I
  • 01:38:06
    don't have the figure in front of me if you can bring the PGRR.
  • 01:38:15
    So if you can point to the section which one you're referring to. I can.
  • 01:38:19
    Yeah. So 3121
  • 01:38:23
    right there in E. So you know, information that supports any load values that differ
  • 01:38:26
    from the load forecast, including, you know, evidence demonstrating
  • 01:38:30
    that the submitted load value, substantiated load, and then in the project evaluation,
  • 01:38:36
    any as applicable, any evidence of substantiated load.
  • 01:38:42
    It seemed like those were kind of connected conceptually with
  • 01:38:46
    what folks have been discussing in NPRR1180
  • 01:38:50
    as well. This language
  • 01:38:57
    is like typical language we use. So if there is any additional information
  • 01:39:00
    that the TSP wants to submit, we can
  • 01:39:06
    receive that information shared with RPG or the RTP
  • 01:39:10
    cases. But I don't think we are requiring
  • 01:39:13
    them to submit anything. That's the primary
  • 01:39:17
    discussion in the set of comments we are
  • 01:39:21
    talking about today. So this language is.
  • 01:39:25
    Yeah, we for reliability or
  • 01:39:28
    economic projects. You know, there is the process, whether It's RTP or RPG.
  • 01:39:32
    You know, we take information from the, from the TSPs,
  • 01:39:36
    whatever they provide. This is the language which says, you know,
  • 01:39:39
    we could, we could use those to provide additional evidence.
  • 01:39:45
    Okay, so not required, but certainly encouraged and
  • 01:39:49
    it can be incorporated into that process.
  • 01:39:51
    Yep, thank you. Appreciate that clarification
  • 01:39:55
    and sorry for taking us off that tangent.
  • 01:39:58
    Yeah, thank you, Ned. Thank you, Prabhu. Bob,
  • 01:40:02
    I see that you were in the queue but your cards down. Did you have
  • 01:40:04
    anything? Okay, let's go to Martha.
  • 01:40:07
    Thank you, Martha Henson with Oncor. Appreciate the
  • 01:40:11
    feedback from OPUC here and the comments they've submitted.
  • 01:40:14
    I think from my perspective, some of the language edits
  • 01:40:18
    they've made are not well understood and
  • 01:40:22
    I think Oncor would prefer to move forward with the
  • 01:40:25
    version of 1180 that PRS recommended to TAC
  • 01:40:28
    last month. I would also, you know, point out the comments that
  • 01:40:32
    Oncor filed Monday. These have a
  • 01:40:36
    public commitment reflected in them for encouraging,
  • 01:40:38
    not for any other TSPs, although as Reshmi mentioned,
  • 01:40:42
    there have been others involved in discussions since the last TAC
  • 01:40:46
    meeting. And basically those comments memorialize
  • 01:40:50
    our commitment to provide additional detail in our future Officer
  • 01:40:54
    Letter submissions such that that information could
  • 01:40:57
    enable ERCOT to publicly share
  • 01:41:01
    more details about the load seeking interconnection,
  • 01:41:05
    both from a location standpoint and also from the perspective
  • 01:41:09
    of where those customers are in the interconnection queue process with
  • 01:41:12
    us. And we do invite other TSPs to
  • 01:41:16
    work on that effort with us. As Michelle mentioned,
  • 01:41:19
    we put together a straw man that we'd like to broaden to be used
  • 01:41:24
    more widely by other TSPs who would like to work with this on us
  • 01:41:27
    in the coming weeks. And it's my Hope that the 2025
  • 01:41:31
    officer letter process and outputs of that will
  • 01:41:35
    therefore have more details and transparency,
  • 01:41:38
    which is the concerns that we have heard. I think also that
  • 01:41:43
    this effort will also help inform whether any
  • 01:41:47
    additional edits are needed to section 2.1 of the protocols
  • 01:41:50
    to reflect this and also what those edits should
  • 01:41:54
    say. But I think it's too early right now to take a stab
  • 01:41:57
    at editing this language. It's been well vetted through the stakeholder
  • 01:42:01
    process and the NPRR revision have been pending
  • 01:42:05
    for I think 20 months now, so they
  • 01:42:08
    have been thoroughly discussed. Oncor is committed to
  • 01:42:13
    working on this effort further, and to the extent that that does inform
  • 01:42:16
    some future revision request, we will be happy to
  • 01:42:20
    discuss those details at the appropriate time. Thanks.
  • 01:42:25
    Thank you, Martha. Bill Barnes yeah,
  • 01:42:28
    thanks. We Support moving NPRR1180 forward
  • 01:42:33
    based on the PRS report. We see it as the first
  • 01:42:37
    of many rule changes that we need to accommodate
  • 01:42:41
    the current reality, which is significant large load growth.
  • 01:42:45
    We acknowledge the concerns in OPUC comments. We share those concerns.
  • 01:42:49
    We think, though, that the process for resolving them is probably better suited in
  • 01:42:53
    a separate process working with Oncor and other TSPs,
  • 01:42:57
    which we appreciate Oncor's cooperation on this. I think this is turning into probably one
  • 01:43:01
    of the biggest challenges our market faces right now. So we share the concerns and
  • 01:43:05
    look forward to working with other stakeholders in TDUs and getting these
  • 01:43:10
    forecasts more transparency so that market can
  • 01:43:13
    digest that and respond appropriately. Thanks,
  • 01:43:18
    John Ross Hubbard. Yep. This is John Ross
  • 01:43:21
    Hubbard with TIEC. We, excuse me,
  • 01:43:24
    as Bill said, I mean we have similar concerns about whether all the forecasted
  • 01:43:28
    load will actually materialize, but we don't,
  • 01:43:31
    you know, but we support this NPRR,
  • 01:43:34
    you know, prior to this NPRR and
  • 01:43:38
    House Bill 56, Incentive Bill 1281, there are blind spots about
  • 01:43:42
    the amount of load coming online. And so this has really helped to, I think
  • 01:43:46
    open everyone's eyes and try to address
  • 01:43:49
    that issue. And so I don't think the right approach at this stage is
  • 01:43:53
    delaying the package of this NPRR.
  • 01:43:56
    So we support it moving forward today. Thank you.
  • 01:44:02
    Thank you, John. Russ Prabhu, did you have something to add?
  • 01:44:07
    Thank you. Pramunyan Murkat.
  • 01:44:12
    We, we support moving forward with this
  • 01:44:16
    probation request as it stands.
  • 01:44:20
    I just wanted to bring a couple of things. This is this
  • 01:44:23
    as Martha pointed out, we've been working on this for several
  • 01:44:27
    months or year and this
  • 01:44:30
    is, you know, this is a very important issue for ERCOT
  • 01:44:34
    because we are seeing a substantial load increase in the system and we wanted to
  • 01:44:38
    make sure we are identifying the transmission needs to
  • 01:44:41
    address this in the need. So there
  • 01:44:45
    is already a concern that like, you know, transmission it takes longer to build.
  • 01:44:48
    So we wanted to be, you know, the intent of what's in
  • 01:44:52
    hospital 5066 and the subsequent legislation change
  • 01:44:55
    and what's proposed here alliance to do that.
  • 01:44:59
    And I also want to note that yeah there is we are very supportive
  • 01:45:03
    of the getting additional transparency. If, you know,
  • 01:45:06
    that's where the stakeholders we would work with them.
  • 01:45:09
    And but at the end we see
  • 01:45:12
    that, you know, the transmission gets approved by ERCOT
  • 01:45:16
    doesn't mean it all gets built. It's ultimately the commission has the,
  • 01:45:19
    you know, authority to determine the need. And you
  • 01:45:22
    know, we at this, at this time we would like
  • 01:45:26
    to move forward with this. Thank you.
  • 01:45:30
    Thank you, Prabhu. I'm not seeing any cards or
  • 01:45:33
    anything in the queue. Do we have a motion to move this forward?
  • 01:45:38
    Richard? Actually, Colin, if I can jump in real
  • 01:45:42
    quick, just question for the group since this one NPRR1180
  • 01:45:45
    also has a related figure that y'all are going to take up. Would y'all want
  • 01:45:48
    to consider them at the same time in the sense that if you're 4:1,
  • 01:45:52
    you'd want the companion to move along or if you were no or abstaining
  • 01:45:55
    on the NPRR, you'd probably want to do the same thing on the PGRR.
  • 01:45:58
    Do we want to run those two together or separate?
  • 01:46:01
    It's like turkey and ham. How could I refuse?
  • 01:46:07
    So, Richard, I'm assuming your motion was to. It would be on screen here.
  • 01:46:11
    It would be the NPRR1180 as it came from PRS with the revised
  • 01:46:15
    IA that just shuffled that language down into the comments and then the PGRR as
  • 01:46:18
    it came from ROS. So. Yes. Can we put this on como ballot or do
  • 01:46:22
    we have an individual ballot?
  • 01:46:25
    Yeah, Naba wants it separate. Let's do it together right here.
  • 01:46:29
    Yep. Okay.
  • 01:46:33
    Okay, so I saw motion from Richard. Susie, did you get a second second
  • 01:46:37
    from Bob Hilton? Okay. Awesome.
  • 01:46:51
    Okay, then on that motion for NPRR1180 and
  • 01:46:54
    its related PGRR, we will start up with Consumers with Napa
  • 01:46:58
    for Eric, Abstein.
  • 01:47:02
    Naba, Abstein. Thank you. Garrett. Yes,
  • 01:47:05
    sir. Thanks, sir. Eric Schubert. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
  • 01:47:08
    Mark Dreyfus. Thank you, Nick. Thank you.
  • 01:47:12
    On to our co-ops, Mike Wise.
  • 01:47:15
    Abstain. Gotcha. Thank you.
  • 01:47:19
    Blake. Welcome to the party. Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Eric Blakey.
  • 01:47:23
    Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. John? Yes, thank you. On to our independent
  • 01:47:27
    generators. Brian. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:47:31
    Caitlin? Yes, thank you.
  • 01:47:34
    Bob Helton. Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Ned?
  • 01:47:39
    Yes, sir. Thank you. Corey. Is that a no, sir.
  • 01:47:42
    Ned? No,
  • 01:47:45
    an affirmative. That's.
  • 01:47:49
    Sorry, I'm right under the ac. Sorry about that,
  • 01:47:52
    Ned. Onto the ipm. Abstain.
  • 01:47:56
    Thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:47:58
    Jeremy. Yes. Thanksgiving. Thank you,
  • 01:48:02
    Ian. Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you. On to our IREPs.
  • 01:48:05
    Bill. Yes, thank you, Jennifer.
  • 01:48:09
    Yes, thank you, Jay. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:48:13
    Thank you, Chris. Yes, thank you. On to our IOUs. Keith.
  • 01:48:18
    Got your yes. In chat. Keith. Thank you, David. Yes, thank you,
  • 01:48:22
    Colin. Yes, thank you, Richard. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:48:26
    On to our munis. Russell. Yes, sir.
  • 01:48:29
    Thanks, sir. Jose. Yes, sir. Thank you, David. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:48:33
    Thank you. And Alicia. Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:48:36
    Motion carries four abstentions. Thank you.
  • 01:48:41
    Okay, thanks, Corey. Any other questions
  • Item 6.2 - NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs
    01:48:45
    or comments here? Right, we are on to
  • 01:48:49
    NPRR1190. This was remanded back
  • 01:48:53
    to us from the board. We tabled it at October tac.
  • 01:48:57
    I don't believe we've filed comments, but we have some verbal
  • 01:49:01
    comments. Stakeholders have been working on this. I see. Bill,
  • 01:49:05
    ready to speak? Yeah. I've had some discussions with
  • 01:49:10
    Eric Goff, but really wanted to kind of preview a concept
  • 01:49:15
    for this group. We don't need to go
  • 01:49:18
    through the whole background again. We did that last time. I don't believe so.
  • 01:49:23
    The new part is acknowledge consumers
  • 01:49:28
    concerns that we should not find ourselves in a situation where
  • 01:49:32
    HDL overrides become a dominant component of our Market,
  • 01:49:36
    which means we would be more dependent on these
  • 01:49:40
    out of market payments, which is. That's not the goal
  • 01:49:43
    of 1190. That's not the goal for any of us. And so the concept
  • 01:49:47
    I wanted to float to try to address the concerns from the consumers is to
  • 01:49:51
    have some type of like annual settlement
  • 01:49:56
    trigger that if ERCOT, if we
  • 01:49:59
    find ourselves in a situation where we've spent more than X million
  • 01:50:03
    dollars worth of HDL override payments, then that triggers a review of
  • 01:50:07
    the language with the intention of tightening up the
  • 01:50:13
    contracts that can be eligible for settlement.
  • 01:50:17
    That is the thought. And there was no expectation
  • 01:50:21
    that this would get resolved today. The thought was actually
  • 01:50:25
    we refer this to WMS or some
  • 01:50:28
    working group and we kind of work on the concept and the details on
  • 01:50:32
    how that would work there.
  • 01:50:36
    That's the thought. So you would.
  • 01:50:42
    I would ask for a table and a refer.
  • 01:50:45
    Okay, well it's tabled, so we don't.
  • 01:50:49
    I'm looking at Corey, who's. Or maybe we don't need just
  • 01:50:53
    kind of say aws. Yeah, we just add
  • 01:50:58
    WMS to look at it.
  • 01:51:01
    Okay, I see a couple comments
  • 01:51:05
    though, but I. So let's take those comments while Corey
  • 01:51:09
    does his thinking over there. All right,
  • 01:51:13
    Ned. And then Mark Jarvis,
  • 01:51:18
    Caitlin. Bill, if I'm. I just want to
  • 01:51:21
    say back what I think I heard, which is you basically set a trigger for
  • 01:51:25
    NPRR1190 as it, as it sits now,
  • 01:51:29
    that would then basically ratchet
  • 01:51:34
    down. It would trigger a ratcheting down if we went beyond a
  • 01:51:37
    certain threshold, which I think is kind of splitting the baby between.
  • 01:51:41
    Look, this doesn't happen very often, but should
  • 01:51:45
    be fair in principle when it, when it does happen. And so
  • 01:51:49
    is that. Am I thinking about that the right way limits
  • 01:51:54
    impact. This should truly be the rare exception,
  • 01:51:58
    which is I think our experience.
  • 01:52:01
    We've not spent a whole lot of money on this on an
  • 01:52:04
    annual basis. I believe maybe Yuri was around a
  • 01:52:07
    couple million dollars, which is a rounding error in terms of the cost for
  • 01:52:11
    what we see in the energy market.
  • 01:52:14
    And the concern from the consumer side is if we
  • 01:52:18
    adopt 1190 as passed through TAC, is the potential for it to
  • 01:52:22
    be expanded and how it's used,
  • 01:52:25
    which could drive up the cost. And that's not really. That's not the intention.
  • 01:52:29
    And so that is, that's the
  • 01:52:32
    point, Ned, is that we expect this to be a rare occurrence.
  • 01:52:36
    The dollar should not be reach a
  • 01:52:40
    material amount during the course of a year. And if that happens, then something
  • 01:52:43
    is going on that none of us really wanted to occur
  • 01:52:47
    and that would trigger a wholesale review of the HDL override process itself
  • 01:52:51
    and also what contracts are being allowed
  • 01:52:55
    through the door essentially with the intention of tightening
  • 01:52:59
    that interpretation.
  • 01:53:04
    Now that seems to me like a thoughtful safety valve, Bill.
  • 01:53:07
    So I support your recommendation if it needs
  • 01:53:10
    to go to WMS to have some more discussion. That's reasonable.
  • 01:53:14
    Thank you. That all said, you know, but we still have to work out all
  • 01:53:16
    the details and what that language looks like. So rather
  • 01:53:21
    do that at a lower subgroup or working group level to kind of hammer
  • 01:53:25
    out language. Okay. I thought
  • 01:53:28
    it was Mark, but I think it's Blake. Yeah,
  • 01:53:32
    Blake Hole, lcra. At first blush, this sounds pretty
  • 01:53:36
    reasonable. Bill, I appreciate you bringing it up. We'd be interested in having
  • 01:53:40
    further discussions. I think, you know, the ratcheting down piece
  • 01:53:43
    is something we want to probably spend a lot of time on
  • 01:53:47
    that and also the threshold level that's set. But appreciate
  • 01:53:51
    you bringing this up. We'd support talking through it
  • 01:53:54
    further. Okay,
  • 01:53:57
    so it is tabled here. I see Eric's
  • 01:54:02
    here. I think Jim was here. He might be hiding from us,
  • 01:54:06
    but I think we can just ask WMS to
  • 01:54:09
    speak about it. You, Eric, you have the opportunity to put this, add this
  • 01:54:13
    to your action items list if you'd like to.
  • 01:54:18
    Thought you might be interested in that. So we can do that.
  • 01:54:22
    I think, you know, this is just me speaking. I think it might be helpful
  • 01:54:27
    if comments were filed just so there's
  • 01:54:30
    something to have the discussion around because otherwise it could
  • 01:54:34
    be kind of open ended. But I.
  • 01:54:36
    Yeah, I wanted to float the idea to make sure
  • 01:54:40
    there wasn't strong opposition before we invested
  • 01:54:43
    time in discussion and comments. But I
  • 01:54:48
    coordinated with Eric Goff a little bit and the thought is we'd kind of huddle
  • 01:54:50
    up probably with Mr. Schubert as well and discuss how this could
  • 01:54:54
    look. Okay. Take a proposal to either WMS or
  • 01:54:58
    WMS, discuss that, get any further feedback and then file.
  • 01:55:03
    It'd be nice to file joint comments that propose some
  • 01:55:07
    language changes. Okay. Okay, go ahead.
  • 01:55:10
    I just say we had a recent experience where ERCOT came
  • 01:55:13
    to us and we came up with three options and, you know,
  • 01:55:17
    to help kind of guide their proposal and kind of see it working the same
  • 01:55:20
    way. Yeah, I mean, there will be written comments filed at
  • 01:55:24
    some point. Awesome. Okay, we have
  • 01:55:27
    some more people in the queue. John Russ Hubbard,
  • 01:55:31
    John Russell with tic. I have some concerns with this
  • 01:55:36
    proposed approach and the.
  • 01:55:39
    I think for one it would expand HDL override
  • 01:55:44
    payments, which, you know, we've been opposed to.
  • 01:55:48
    And then two,
  • 01:55:52
    I guess it's unclear what would happen if such a trigger was reached?
  • 01:55:57
    So I, yeah, I have concerns
  • 01:56:00
    with this approach and I'm not sure.
  • 01:56:04
    Yeah, I have concerns with the approach. Thanks.
  • 01:56:11
    Okay. Austin,
  • 01:56:16
    I was just going to ask if you could include us,
  • 01:56:20
    Bill, I'd appreciate it. I already have a couple thoughts that
  • 01:56:23
    I think would be helpful, and I'm biting my tongue because we're not. I don't
  • 01:56:27
    want to get into details here. That's what WMS is for. But if you're going
  • 01:56:30
    to, like, come together with kind of a tight something a proposal tied in a
  • 01:56:33
    bow, if you can include us, I'd appreciate it. No, no showstoppers
  • 01:56:38
    or anything. Just. Just some thoughts. Yep. We'll do.
  • 01:56:42
    Okay. All right.
  • 01:56:45
    Any other questions or comments?
  • 01:56:50
    So we'll keep NPRR1190 tabled
  • 01:56:54
    and it's pretend referred to WMS.
  • 01:56:58
    Okay. But doing it this way they can.
  • 01:57:01
    We can wait on WMS to vote before.
  • 01:57:05
    Yeah, WMS reports to y'all, so you can do whatever
  • 01:57:09
    you'd like. The referral at the subcommittee level is the
  • 01:57:13
    sort of, you know, handshake of we're all at the same
  • 01:57:17
    level. We PRs are going to table it and wait for WMS to give us
  • 01:57:20
    feedback or vice versa. But all of those subcommittees
  • 01:57:23
    report to tac. So when TAC is ready for a vote, y'all take it up.
  • 01:57:27
    You've given an action item to WMS. However they
  • 01:57:30
    bring back that result, they come to agreement on formal comments
  • 01:57:34
    would be great. They come back with everyone came together around the existing
  • 01:57:38
    language, whatever that feedback is on whatever timeline you'll dictate.
  • 01:57:42
    Okay. Always ripe for attack action at the next. Maybe we
  • 01:57:45
    have them report back. I think the vote would get confusing because it's
  • 01:57:49
    not going to PRS in this case. So let's,
  • 01:57:53
    let's just hear back from WMS.
  • 01:57:57
    Okay. So work for everyone.
  • 01:58:03
    All right. And we can move on.
  • Item 6.3 - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
    01:58:08
    We are at NOGRR264.
  • 01:58:12
    I think that can remain tabled awaiting NPRR1235
  • Item 6.4 - NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
    01:58:17
    NOGRR266,
  • 01:58:22
    I believe, is ready for approval.
  • 01:58:26
    Is that correct? And we did, we did approve 1239
  • 01:58:30
    today, right? In the PRS report. Yes. Put it on the combo.
  • 01:58:34
    The next three, actually, 1239 was in Diana's
  • 01:58:38
    report, 1240 was in Diana's report. And 1246.
  • 01:58:41
    Okay. The non 1247 stuff, that has faded
  • 01:58:44
    from your memory. So these three have been waiting
  • 01:58:48
    for those NPRRs. So all three of those should be right for the combo.
  • Item 6.5 - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
    01:58:51
    Unless anyone's got no good NOGRR266, NOGRR267 and OBDR052
  • Item 6.7 - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
    01:58:57
    and the NPRR, PGRR116 as well.
  • 01:59:01
    Does anybody have an issue with putting those on the combo ballot?
  • Item 6.6 - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
    01:59:06
    I got a thumbs up. Okay, so just OBDRR052 does
  • 01:59:10
    have ERCOT comments on it to clarify uses of ESR, but just
  • 01:59:13
    clarifications. You were the
  • 01:59:16
    one who told me I could put it on the combo bounce. Okay,
  • 01:59:20
    does ERCOT want to go through those comments? It's just
  • 01:59:23
    clarification. It's just a clarification. Does anybody Want to hear ERCOT's
  • 01:59:27
    comments on OBDRR052? I can chime in.
  • 01:59:30
    It's just based on timing. Similar comments were filed at 1246
  • 01:59:34
    that were considered by PRS. So they're in the PRS report. We were
  • 01:59:38
    a little over eager in terms of dropping in ESR into
  • 01:59:41
    a bunch of places. And so upon further reflection with the attorneys,
  • 01:59:45
    they decided that the existing language covered those. So in the NPRR
  • 01:59:49
    and PGRR that ROS and PRS voted on, we filed comments to back
  • 01:59:53
    out some of those changes because the existing language was fine. There were
  • 01:59:56
    some existing. There were some additional edits in the OBDRR
  • 02:00:00
    for y'all to consider, but it's the exact same exercise of we
  • 02:00:04
    said ESR in too many places. Okay. But we are fine with
  • 02:00:08
    adding those four items to the combo validation.
  • 02:00:12
    All right. Okay. We were now going to take things
  • 02:00:17
    a little bit out of order. We are going to do the
  • 02:00:21
    RTC+B update here if Matt
  • 02:00:25
    is ready.
  • Item 11 - RTC+B Task Force Report - Matt Mereness
    02:00:33
    All right, thank you, Matt. Marina Surcott. If someone
  • 02:00:36
    can ping Andrew, that would be great. He is not answering my team's calls,
  • 02:00:41
    so wanted to walk through today a slightly
  • 02:00:45
    different pace. It's more of a here where we are on the readiness
  • 02:00:49
    pieces and then here's where we are on the policy pieces. We've been starting to
  • 02:00:52
    chip away at that and we'll be finding some more information here
  • 02:00:56
    in the coming days. But I wanted to highlight the key
  • 02:01:00
    issues. The schedule hasn't changed at all.
  • 02:01:03
    Some good news, we did receive our RTC scared from the vendor.
  • 02:01:07
    So we have our real time market in hand. It's our beta release from them
  • 02:01:10
    and the day ahead market and ruck. So back in the lab, we're actually
  • 02:01:14
    connecting these things together and getting them off and rolling, but we have these
  • 02:01:17
    policy issues that are, you know, in front of us that we need to address.
  • 02:01:21
    And so again, I'll go through what does it look like on the queasy side
  • 02:01:24
    of readiness and how we're Serving that what these
  • 02:01:28
    policy needs are in terms of getting an NPRR into place.
  • 02:01:31
    And then the IMM proposal, we've been waiting for this and they provided last week
  • 02:01:36
    a walkthrough of the AS demand curves. And again, if we can get Andrew here,
  • 02:01:40
    he was willing to give a little 5 minute spiel on that if we want
  • 02:01:42
    to. But I could show you a couple slides to help that. And then what
  • 02:01:45
    we're looking at for next month's meeting. So no change on this.
  • 02:01:49
    Market trials are still starting May 5th. There's one change that's not
  • 02:01:53
    here is we are going to do an early release to the market. Kind of
  • 02:01:55
    a moat is if you use moat ever. That's our testing
  • 02:01:59
    environment. We will have that in March and April. So even before we
  • 02:02:03
    get to market trials, we want to put something out there so the vendors can
  • 02:02:06
    use a test certificate to be hitting it instead of waiting for May and hoping
  • 02:02:10
    everything goes well. So that's something that will start to bake into the plan.
  • 02:02:14
    And then here's the issues list. And so what you hadn't seen before was the
  • 02:02:17
    bottom half. The top half has been these policy issues
  • 02:02:21
    in the red box. These are things that we said as
  • 02:02:25
    a task Force in 2019, we could argue over
  • 02:02:28
    proxy offers or just say parameterize it. Let's come back and get
  • 02:02:31
    them approved by TAC later. So this is the handful of those.
  • 02:02:34
    Let's get back to them later. And now it's later. Originally we talked
  • 02:02:38
    about those being TAC approved, you know, working with
  • 02:02:41
    our legal team. And just from a risk management perspective, it makes sense in
  • 02:02:45
    this day and age to memorialize those values and protocols because they're not going to
  • 02:02:48
    change. It's just making the hardest decision ahead of go live.
  • 02:02:51
    So these issues will be wrapped into a single NPRR
  • 02:02:55
    already get out. We have another slide on that. And this is the progression
  • 02:02:59
    of those topics to then get the NPRR out and
  • 02:03:02
    approved so that we hit the May trials with those new parameters
  • 02:03:06
    in place. That's the goal, is to have everything in place by that
  • 02:03:10
    time. And then separate from that is reviewing the AS demand curves.
  • 02:03:13
    That's where we've been lighting up the simulator. We run five operating
  • 02:03:17
    days. People will look at the prices and saying what are the impacts and are
  • 02:03:20
    the AS demand curves what we want that are approved or should
  • 02:03:23
    there be better ones? So that's a separate policy issue outside of this
  • 02:03:27
    NPRR. And then just the market readiness. We've done a lot of market readiness
  • 02:03:31
    already, but you guys are waiting on the handbooks. You're waiting on more
  • 02:03:34
    of the details of training for the annual operator training seminar in
  • 02:03:38
    March. And so those pieces are starting to fall into place and we have a
  • 02:03:41
    schedule for those. So we don't have to have everything perfectly done
  • 02:03:45
    yet, but we need a plan to get there. So this is that progression over
  • 02:03:48
    these coming months. So when your shop says we're going to get
  • 02:03:51
    it done, this is what you point to.
  • 02:03:55
    So in terms of the meeting last week, I just want to touch on a
  • 02:03:58
    couple of these. A couple of these. One is a training update.
  • 02:04:02
    We did have some initial training videos I'll talk about in the next slide.
  • 02:04:06
    We did discuss the NPRR for those parameters that
  • 02:04:10
    I talked about that I have a slide on. We did do a third round
  • 02:04:13
    of the AS proxy offers. This is where Dave there was
  • 02:04:17
    the idea that if a queasy doesn't fill in
  • 02:04:20
    a $megawatt value on their bid, would we
  • 02:04:23
    like energy today extended up to the cap?
  • 02:04:27
    Some other markets and ERCOT recommended, I think the
  • 02:04:30
    IMM supported the idea of zero would be the right value. Dave came back
  • 02:04:34
    with something between last week. So the idea is to let that soak in.
  • 02:04:38
    To start to use the AS demand curves is to fill in that piece.
  • 02:04:41
    And we're going to have yet another discussion on that in December.
  • 02:04:45
    And then again the AS demand curves, that was a first cut at that.
  • 02:04:49
    And then the simulator update. So if you want to do a quick click on
  • 02:04:52
    these slides, this will get you into the data sets
  • 02:04:56
    that we did these five operating days. So we did
  • 02:05:00
    a September 6, 2023, that's a scarcity day.
  • 02:05:03
    We had a July 10, 2023 congestion
  • 02:05:06
    day and then October reliability deployment adder
  • 02:05:10
    day, another volatile day on June 19 and
  • 02:05:14
    PGRR116. So when I'm pointing to these, what I'm saying is
  • 02:05:17
    we have taken those operating days that were real,
  • 02:05:20
    we used it and put it into a bunch of code back at ERCOT,
  • 02:05:23
    load up the save cases and run it through the real time co optimization methodology
  • 02:05:27
    and then publish what the prices would have been. So this is a chance to
  • 02:05:30
    see the before and after prices, how congestion is being managed, where system
  • 02:05:33
    lambda is, and to start to see the impacts of that just on those particular
  • 02:05:37
    days. And then we've posted all of our meetings for
  • 02:05:40
    2025. Be advised, as we get into market trials, we'll have weekly meetings.
  • 02:05:44
    But that's not all y'all, that's just whoever's doing the work for
  • 02:05:48
    the shops. So we also add this to
  • 02:05:51
    the RTCBTF homepage. The Vision
  • 02:05:55
    I've been sharing over the last couple of meetings is ERCOT can't stand up formal
  • 02:05:59
    training. We didn't budget for that. But the idea is when we
  • 02:06:03
    present a key concept. Sorry concept,
  • 02:06:07
    when we connect the dots on something that's important, we want to memorialize that,
  • 02:06:11
    make it reproducible so someone can self serve later. Most frequently asked question
  • 02:06:15
    Matt that was a great agenda. That was a great discussion. I wish
  • 02:06:18
    we had recorded it. Well, this is our way of starting to record things that
  • 02:06:21
    are valuable to get in front of the market. So the two that we've published
  • 02:06:25
    is Maggie Shanks did a settlements overview all
  • 02:06:28
    the new billing determinants that are being added. It's 45 minutes and you can go
  • 02:06:31
    blind on squiggly math and little letters on
  • 02:06:35
    billing determinants. And then we have Nathan Smith is
  • 02:06:38
    the market submissions changes. How did the real time as offers
  • 02:06:42
    start to change or the current operating plan changes? So these are the before and
  • 02:06:46
    after type things. The one that we're excited about waiting on is Dave Maggio is
  • 02:06:50
    going to do kind of an RTC101 the before and after
  • 02:06:53
    type thing. So that'll be a 30, 20 to 30 minute video that someone
  • 02:06:57
    can watch and see it. So again, this isn't the meeting itself.
  • 02:07:01
    They're going back to a lab and recording it and cleaning it up then
  • 02:07:06
    on the parameter. So I already spoke to this. I won't spend much more time.
  • 02:07:10
    We have four TAC approved parameter type things that were deferred.
  • 02:07:14
    These are those four items. Each of those four items we talked about
  • 02:07:18
    at the last meeting and the timeline to release an NPRR
  • 02:07:21
    is ERCOT's looking to file this in December is aggressive before the December 11th
  • 02:07:25
    meeting, but definitely by January is the draft.
  • 02:07:29
    The NPRR goes into the stakeholder process, it's filed. There may
  • 02:07:32
    be blanks in there because we haven't figured it out, but it would be the
  • 02:07:35
    framework within which we dial in those numbers as
  • 02:07:38
    we go over time and get those in. So in parallel
  • 02:07:42
    as we vet those issues and fill in the blanks, market participants can document
  • 02:07:46
    their position. They can say we don't like this as proxy offer
  • 02:07:49
    and here's why and let the record show this is why we don't like it.
  • 02:07:52
    So that way we have a more formal process rather than just, you know,
  • 02:07:56
    working it out in the task force and then going live and why did we
  • 02:07:59
    do what we did and was there any discussion? This is a way to track
  • 02:08:02
    these really important things with transparency and confidence to
  • 02:08:06
    get there. So the target would be completing all that analysis
  • 02:08:09
    by March. At that point we may have a special meeting in
  • 02:08:12
    early March so that we can get through PRS approval in March,
  • 02:08:16
    TAC approval in March and onto the board by April. That allows us to dial
  • 02:08:20
    in those values for market trials in May. So this is aggressive,
  • 02:08:23
    it's not fun, but it's a way to get there.
  • 02:08:27
    And that's what we're looking to do then in terms
  • 02:08:30
    of the AS demand curves. So the imm, I kind of snapped
  • 02:08:34
    this out of their presentation.
  • 02:08:37
    So as you know, the protocol approved demand curve, that's presumptuous.
  • 02:08:42
    You may or may not know that the AS demand curves are shaped like this.
  • 02:08:45
    So we have a ORDC curve. And the idea was,
  • 02:08:49
    and this was kind of a commissioner memo back, chairman memo back in 2019
  • 02:08:53
    said the ORDC curve will be the foundation or
  • 02:08:56
    basis for the AS demand curves and they should be constructed
  • 02:09:00
    underneath that. And so back in 2019, ERCOT brought
  • 02:09:04
    a proposal together. You know, there's shams brought a proposal together and this
  • 02:09:07
    is what we ended up with in approved protocols, which is literally regulation,
  • 02:09:11
    all in one block at $5,000. Then we have the
  • 02:09:15
    responsive reserve all at 5,000 or it drops off depending on
  • 02:09:19
    how much it is. ECRS is the next product and then non spends
  • 02:09:22
    the remainder. And so those were sharp, sharp curves and they deconstruct into
  • 02:09:26
    this, you know, kind of step up piece. And the IMM took
  • 02:09:30
    and said what would it look like to create some ramp ins for each of
  • 02:09:33
    these curves? And so they again, the regulation one is a pretty
  • 02:09:37
    steep one. But then you can see here that the responsive reserve is
  • 02:09:40
    steep but has a tail to it. ECRS and Non-Spin.
  • 02:09:44
    And each of these reserves could now go up to the offer cap or could
  • 02:09:47
    go up, sorry, not the offer cap could go up to the R to see
  • 02:09:50
    max of 5,000. And so we
  • 02:09:54
    can open that. Andrew talked about if there's a need to do a walkthrough for
  • 02:09:56
    that, we can. But that's just kind of a representation what they did.
  • 02:10:00
    The value in the opening this. I'll just open the slides. We're here.
  • 02:10:03
    Do I have a minute? Take two minutes. I'll see if I can. Okay,
  • 02:10:07
    I got a thumbs up. Okay, so this is 25 slides which
  • 02:10:10
    I will not try to represent.
  • 02:10:13
    But one thing that IMM said, you know, there's this idea
  • 02:10:16
    of nested AS demand curves in other jurisdictions
  • 02:10:20
    that may be a background element to use for comparison purposes.
  • 02:10:24
    And that would be perhaps a longer term place to be.
  • 02:10:27
    But in the absence of that, can we use a reshaping
  • 02:10:31
    of the current curves to get closer to that construct?
  • 02:10:35
    And so what the idea was is to create these tails. And so here's what
  • 02:10:39
    I just voiced over the design goals were to the aggregate
  • 02:10:42
    demand must match the ordc. So don't reshape that.
  • 02:10:45
    The individual as demand curves and max prices exhibit a
  • 02:10:49
    product hierarchy. Each curve reaches a max price near vol and
  • 02:10:53
    reg up and responsive shortages should occur only during
  • 02:10:56
    scarcities. So if you're taking away from that and putting it
  • 02:11:00
    into a ramp, like if regulation is pricing out at $100
  • 02:11:04
    in scarcity, is that bad? And the idea is, well, you're already in scarcity,
  • 02:11:08
    so it's there. You're probably there. So the idea is how to
  • 02:11:11
    shape these things to fit together economically and reliably
  • 02:11:15
    to get to that point. And so here's the reason I wanted to
  • 02:11:18
    open the slides if y'all want to go chew on this a bit. They have
  • 02:11:22
    taken and run. What would the prices
  • 02:11:25
    be if it was just using the ERCOT approved logic
  • 02:11:30
    shows These prices for September 6th versus
  • 02:11:33
    the blended estimated values and they
  • 02:11:36
    just walk through a group of these over time. And so
  • 02:11:40
    I'm not here to try to represent it all, it's just to connect you to
  • 02:11:43
    the information. And this is what we're discussing. So we spent an hour and a
  • 02:11:46
    half on this I think at the RTC+BTF
  • 02:11:50
    and just wanted to put it in the field of play since it's new information
  • 02:11:53
    and key to price formation. So with that
  • 02:11:57
    I'll kind of pause and see if anyone else wants to talk about that.
  • 02:12:00
    I think Andrew was going to be here too.
  • 02:12:04
    He's online. Okay, I see a question.
  • 02:12:08
    I am here. Can we take the. Hey Andrew, do you want to go ahead
  • 02:12:11
    or do you want to take a question from Bill Barnes first?
  • 02:12:15
    Sure, if Bill's question is directed at me, we can start there. Mine are not
  • 02:12:20
    ASDC related. Yeah. What? Mine are not ASDC
  • 02:12:24
    related. Okay, should we get back
  • 02:12:27
    to you after this conversation? Okay, let's do that. Go ahead, Andrew.
  • 02:12:31
    I can either kind of
  • 02:12:35
    echo what Matt said, which is that we had some
  • 02:12:38
    concerns with the approved ASDCs.
  • 02:12:42
    We proposed a way
  • 02:12:46
    of breaking up the ASDCs that we think would improve price
  • 02:12:49
    formation and sched's ability to make efficient trade offs between
  • 02:12:53
    products. We think that we can
  • 02:12:57
    reformulate these curves without having to completely
  • 02:13:02
    redesign the SCED RTC engine.
  • 02:13:05
    So these curves, we have already implemented them
  • 02:13:10
    in ERCOT's sched simulator tool. And so we don't think
  • 02:13:13
    there's really a technical or performance issue with
  • 02:13:17
    implementing curves like this. It would just be a policy issue.
  • 02:13:21
    We presented some examples of how
  • 02:13:24
    reformulating the curves would result in different
  • 02:13:28
    price formation and awards at RTC+BTF last
  • 02:13:31
    week. There were a few follow up comments that
  • 02:13:35
    we think we can address pretty easily
  • 02:13:39
    related to various things that we're going to bring to like
  • 02:13:43
    everyone. We have various people
  • 02:13:47
    out with the holidays and things over the next six weeks
  • 02:13:50
    or so. And so we'll either plan on bringing some new information to
  • 02:13:54
    the December RTC ETF meeting
  • 02:13:58
    or it may make more sense for us to put those to
  • 02:14:01
    January. But that's the idea. I think we have a pretty
  • 02:14:05
    good idea of how we want to move forward. It's just a question of how
  • 02:14:08
    much detail we think we can get done
  • 02:14:11
    in December and whether it makes more sense to move it to January. So I
  • 02:14:15
    think that's the long and short of our comments
  • 02:14:19
    today. The next steps, after maybe
  • 02:14:22
    showing a little more analysis will be to work with ERCOT about
  • 02:14:27
    figuring out whether, whether and who will be putting
  • 02:14:31
    an NPRR together, who would sponsor it, that sort of thing.
  • 02:14:39
    Okay, thanks Andrew. Brian Sams hey
  • 02:14:44
    Andrew, when you say it's a policy issue,
  • 02:14:48
    going back and looking at Matt's kind of Gantt
  • 02:14:53
    chart with where he started,
  • 02:14:56
    it said tbd,
  • 02:15:00
    how do you expect that to roll through the process?
  • 02:15:04
    Is my first question. Okay,
  • 02:15:07
    sure. So any change to these curves
  • 02:15:10
    would require a revision to the protocols at the least.
  • 02:15:13
    And so that is the least amount of
  • 02:15:17
    policy design implementation
  • 02:15:21
    type stuff that we'd have to get through. A more TBD
  • 02:15:26
    aspect that we might want to pursue is that there's
  • 02:15:31
    currently kind of a constraint to make the AS demand curves
  • 02:15:35
    fit the kind of existing ORDC
  • 02:15:39
    in a kind of two dimensional sense. And we think
  • 02:15:43
    that we could do a lot better to redesign the AS demand curves if
  • 02:15:47
    that constraint were relaxed. So there are a variety of
  • 02:15:52
    different things that that might mean it. It just
  • 02:15:56
    means that if you, you know, line up all the ASDCs
  • 02:15:59
    together, they don't necessarily look like the current RDC
  • 02:16:03
    and each of the products would be more corresponding to
  • 02:16:07
    its reliability value. The amount
  • 02:16:11
    of capacity priced at $5,000 might be different.
  • 02:16:14
    The max prices for the different products might be
  • 02:16:17
    slightly different. Those are all parameters that could be
  • 02:16:21
    adjusted further if we didn't have to meet the I think it's
  • 02:16:24
    KP114 constraint.
  • 02:16:28
    Yeah, I agree with you. That constraint does
  • 02:16:33
    have a big limitation. It also has A big limitation on,
  • 02:16:37
    I think, achieving the reliability standard that the Commission adopted
  • 02:16:40
    recently. And so as you're thinking about this,
  • 02:16:44
    are you also thinking about whether
  • 02:16:47
    changes move you closer to achieving the standard or further away?
  • 02:16:51
    And is there analysis that will support that happening?
  • 02:16:56
    I don't think we have any analysis on
  • 02:17:00
    like the. We would need to do some analysis on the total amount of
  • 02:17:04
    revenue in the market. If we were to try to comply
  • 02:17:09
    with the spirit of the
  • 02:17:12
    kind of pricing outcomes under RTC relative to the
  • 02:17:16
    current rdc, that might be something we have to do because
  • 02:17:19
    the curve would look different. But, but there would still need to be some
  • 02:17:23
    analysis about how much revenue was
  • 02:17:27
    entering the market through that kind of those curves.
  • 02:17:30
    Okay.
  • 02:17:37
    I don't know who that was or if they had some great comment,
  • 02:17:40
    but they can get in line, I guess.
  • 02:17:46
    I guess I would just really encourage you all to do that and
  • 02:17:50
    make sure that you're making changes that
  • 02:17:55
    comport with the standard that we have now. Thank you,
  • 02:18:01
    Keith. This is kind of a
  • 02:18:05
    combination question for Matt and Andrew because
  • 02:18:09
    I think Andrew was talking about obviously the holidays,
  • 02:18:12
    the schedule, being able to get things through, but in terms
  • 02:18:16
    of our ability to process this through the whole
  • 02:18:21
    board, etc. So Matt,
  • 02:18:24
    when. When are we targeting an NPRR?
  • 02:18:28
    When would that need to be done? That would probably in parallel
  • 02:18:32
    to the other NPRR, which would be January. Okay. At the latest to hit
  • 02:18:36
    on an urgent basis to hit the PRS meetings
  • 02:18:39
    in March, April, just to go back to. So I put it
  • 02:18:43
    on the same, same flight path as this at the bottom is the
  • 02:18:47
    best case. Okay. All right, thank you. And so I, I think that's important
  • 02:18:51
    for Andrew and others in terms of what we're
  • 02:18:54
    shooting for. I think our view is that hitting,
  • 02:18:58
    hitting our December 25th target is paramount.
  • 02:19:02
    And so you have a window of opportunity. And so while we are sensitive
  • 02:19:07
    to constraints and whatnot,
  • 02:19:10
    we also recognize that there are other constraints. And so there's a
  • 02:19:14
    window. Please jump in. But there's
  • 02:19:18
    not much wiggle room. Thanks.
  • 02:19:21
    Okay, so my question related to that is,
  • 02:19:26
    does ERCOT see it as an imperative that
  • 02:19:31
    these changes be implemented
  • 02:19:34
    at go live, or is it possible that we could
  • 02:19:38
    go live with the current as demand curves
  • 02:19:41
    while we're still implementing whatever
  • 02:19:44
    NPRR comes out of this work? So I think
  • 02:19:48
    we're always of the mind that what we have now is implementable
  • 02:19:53
    in December. And so we have an opportunity to consider
  • 02:19:56
    a change that doesn't, that is limited.
  • 02:19:59
    But if we miss the window, then it will happen afterwards.
  • 02:20:04
    Okay. And that's in our view, acceptable. Cool. All right, thank you.
  • 02:20:11
    Okay, let's go to Barksdale.
  • 02:20:15
    I think Keith said everything, but I'm just going
  • 02:20:18
    to put a. Put a punctuation mark and underline
  • 02:20:22
    underneath it. That implementation on design December 5th. Is it
  • 02:20:28
    super happy for the market to be thinking about how to improve the
  • 02:20:32
    ASDCs.
  • 02:20:34
    And if you all can come together and sing Kumbaya over
  • 02:20:38
    something in time to get it in, great. If it
  • 02:20:41
    can't, no worries. We've got a position. It's in the
  • 02:20:45
    protocols already. We don't have to stress out about it. We're going
  • 02:20:48
    to go live on December 5 and commission staff
  • 02:20:52
    is. What's the right way
  • 02:20:55
    of saying, I guess we'll just make sure
  • 02:20:58
    to reiterate that point as conversations go on, and if it
  • 02:21:02
    feels like it's going to turn into a contentious debate, then we'll just continue to
  • 02:21:05
    reiterate. Implementation date is the thing.
  • 02:21:11
    Okay, Blake. Yeah. And I just want
  • 02:21:14
    to state for the record that I am in position on
  • 02:21:17
    this, is that, you know, our goal all along was to
  • 02:21:21
    determine that we could move forward with
  • 02:21:25
    the currently scheduled Go Live date
  • 02:21:28
    without having to, you know, without it being a
  • 02:21:32
    showstopper. And so while we have identified some concerns
  • 02:21:35
    that we think could be improved, I don't think we would want to do anything
  • 02:21:38
    that would, you know, force a delay of Go Live.
  • 02:21:44
    Okay, thanks, Andrew. Blake.
  • 02:21:49
    I think I'm good. My, my questions.
  • 02:21:52
    Okay. Bill, you still
  • 02:21:56
    your conversations on a different topic? Yeah. It was the simulator.
  • 02:21:59
    Well, first of all, thanks for the training modules. We really appreciate that and look
  • 02:22:02
    forward to the others you roll out on the simulator.
  • 02:22:08
    Are we going to get another slug of example days? I think very
  • 02:22:12
    good timing. So you're on that. Yep. Good. That's super
  • 02:22:16
    helpful for all of us to, like, try to figure out how this is going
  • 02:22:18
    to impact market outcomes. So thank you for continuing to do that.
  • 02:22:22
    Would it. I know this is labor intensive in
  • 02:22:26
    terms of, you know, running days in the simulator, but is there a way that
  • 02:22:29
    you could actually input the IMMS blended ASDCs and rerun
  • 02:22:33
    a couple days to show both? Yes. Okay,
  • 02:22:36
    thanks. But it comes at a cost of not doing some of the other stuff,
  • 02:22:39
    so it's not. We just can't pancake on and let's do this and this.
  • 02:22:42
    But if that's the next thing, then that's certainly doable. And we're using
  • 02:22:46
    the same simulator, which is kind of cool.
  • 02:22:51
    I think that would probably be valuable as well.
  • 02:22:55
    So we'll figure out a Way to. Yeah, yeah. So the question would be,
  • 02:22:57
    so we've run whatever it was five operating days already, is there
  • 02:23:01
    a first operating day? You guys would want to see that. So we can do
  • 02:23:03
    new days or we start backtracking up and running through different numbers on
  • 02:23:07
    the same days as before. So all
  • 02:23:14
    right, so that, so that even feeds into kind of what we're looking at next.
  • 02:23:17
    So the AS proxy offer floors, we're going to talk about the December meeting,
  • 02:23:21
    the AS demand curves from the IMM and again if we want to dial
  • 02:23:24
    those into the simulation, we can. Outside of
  • 02:23:28
    that, we are planning to do the next four operating days or the ones that
  • 02:23:30
    that were requested to do analysis of. And there's an explanation of why those were
  • 02:23:34
    selected. And this is actually kind of a top 20 list that was given to
  • 02:23:38
    the to ERCOT probably seven or eight months ago.
  • 02:23:41
    So Luminant took the lead, other people have signed on and said yeah,
  • 02:23:44
    these look like the right dates in the rationale form. So we don't have a
  • 02:23:48
    prioritized list. We just keep coming back to the RTC ETF and saying
  • 02:23:51
    what's next? And so this is our what's next?
  • 02:23:55
    And then these last couple pieces, pieces I want to hit slowly
  • 02:23:58
    but surely as deliverability.
  • 02:24:01
    So the idea is real time CO optimization as it
  • 02:24:05
    co optimizes puts energy into one place and will sometimes
  • 02:24:08
    move ancillary services into another place because it's
  • 02:24:11
    cheaper when there's congested energy and you can move this out of the way.
  • 02:24:15
    The day ahead market does the same thing today. And so as we award and
  • 02:24:19
    have demonstrated through the simulator where those ancillary services move,
  • 02:24:23
    there's been some question on this as deliverability. So ERCOT's
  • 02:24:27
    building the functionality for the operators to manage that when they need
  • 02:24:30
    to. We also recognize that if those are a frequency response
  • 02:24:34
    that you know, those AS behind constraints will pulse briefly to
  • 02:24:38
    arrest frequency and then things move around, it skid dispatches, it rebalances
  • 02:24:42
    around those constraints. But it's a good educational conversation
  • 02:24:46
    that will continue and we're bringing the operations folks to the December
  • 02:24:49
    meeting to walk through that. The other one that people are concerned
  • 02:24:55
    with is there's this line in protocols that say
  • 02:25:00
    that the intermittent renewables
  • 02:25:05
    can, if they have capability, can be
  • 02:25:08
    awarded in SCED for as for non spin and
  • 02:25:12
    ECRs and that's begging the question if they're inactively participating,
  • 02:25:16
    is this really the best design or should we be concerned with
  • 02:25:19
    this? And so we'll start to talk more about that one also. But These
  • 02:25:23
    are kind of the two bigger issues right now based on the simulation is
  • 02:25:26
    hey, this AS deliverability issue, is that a concern? And by the way,
  • 02:25:30
    if the renewables are all being automagically selected
  • 02:25:33
    and dispatched, is that a good design or not? And so again we'll talk more
  • 02:25:37
    through that at the next meeting. And then we're trying to bring the initial set
  • 02:25:40
    of market trial handbooks for the May activities to the
  • 02:25:44
    group. So it'll be a lot in December over the holidays. But trying to get
  • 02:25:47
    these things, keep them moving. And with that all that's
  • 02:25:50
    all I have unless there are any questions.
  • 02:25:53
    Okay. There any questions?
  • 02:25:56
    Eric, did you have one? Eric Schubert, Lionel Chemical Fairly
  • 02:26:00
    small beer perhaps. But with as deliverability we
  • 02:26:04
    now are going to have storage. And if you do real
  • 02:26:07
    time quantization, how are you
  • 02:26:10
    managing the state of charge? Because you could see a situation where they
  • 02:26:14
    may be rigged up and then they could be rigged down within 10
  • 02:26:17
    minutes. I mean do you have ability to track state of charge at a
  • 02:26:21
    five minute basis? Yes, being a telemetered value for us.
  • 02:26:24
    Okay, thank you.
  • 02:26:28
    Anything else? All right, thanks for the
  • 02:26:31
    time. Thanks Matt.
  • 02:26:38
    Okay, now we will go to the RMS
  • Item 7 - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever
    02:26:42
    report. Debbie, are you on to give us the RMS report?
  • 02:26:46
    Yes I am Caitlin. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:26:49
    This is really going to be quick. RMS did not meet in November.
  • 02:26:54
    John and I did want to give a quick update regarding our success
  • 02:26:57
    success of the Texas 5.0 and the Market Track SCR
  • 02:27:01
    817 implementation that occurred over the weekend
  • 02:27:05
    of November 9th and 10th. That that required
  • 02:27:09
    a total of seven market rules necessary to support
  • 02:27:12
    the implementation as one and BRR2 system change
  • 02:27:15
    requests, four retail mark guide revision requests and tons and
  • 02:27:19
    tons of Texas set change controls. All of those have been previously
  • 02:27:23
    presented for TAC for approval. Except for the Texas set change controls.
  • 02:27:28
    All existing TDSPs and REPs migrated over
  • 02:27:31
    that weekend and we ended up with some
  • 02:27:35
    new REPS about 24 and the majority of those
  • 02:27:38
    are duns plus fours. However, in our market every
  • 02:27:42
    duns stands alone. We did
  • 02:27:46
    encounter a lot of transactional issues at first.
  • 02:27:49
    Those have primarily been resolved. We are still working with some parties
  • 02:27:53
    to get those fixed
  • 02:27:56
    so we can move forward without any errors.
  • 02:28:00
    We really really really want to give a big thank
  • 02:28:04
    you to Dave Michelson with ERCOT and his
  • 02:28:07
    team. It was just an unbelievable effort by
  • 02:28:11
    ERCOT. It just truly hours and hours and hours of work.
  • 02:28:15
    247 support for us. I really want to
  • 02:28:18
    thank everybody, TAC leadership,
  • 02:28:22
    everybody that helped us through this huge effort. It had been 12 years
  • 02:28:26
    since we had a Texa set version release. So anyway,
  • 02:28:29
    just kudos to everyone. All right, any questions?
  • 02:28:38
    I don't see any, but. But congrats on. On the
  • 02:28:41
    new Texas set version. Oh, thank you so much.
  • 02:28:45
    Thank you.
  • 02:28:48
    All right, we can go to the ROS report.
  • 02:28:55
    Katie, are you ready? Yep. Awesome. Good afternoon,
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 8 - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich
    02:28:58
    everyone. This is Katie Rich, your ROS chair. So all
  • 02:29:02
    three of these items were related to the PRS
  • Item 8.1 - PGRR107, Related to NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
    02:29:06
    report. Of course, you just approved PGRR107.
  • Item 8.2 - PGRR118, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
    02:29:09
    So that leaves PGRR118 and
  • Item 8.3 - NOGRR268, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
    02:29:16
    NOGRR268. And then if you go on to the next slide, we did take some
  • 02:29:20
    actions. Obviously we already moved to 1247.
  • 02:29:24
    But just note that there were three nos and a lot
  • 02:29:27
    of abstentions on that. Even after
  • 02:29:31
    having the special PLWG meeting,
  • 02:29:35
    the 1257 was
  • 02:29:39
    tabled and referred to PDC approved. They just had
  • 02:29:43
    their meeting and it sounds like that's going to be coming back to
  • 02:29:46
    ROS for its December meeting.
  • 02:29:49
    PLWG was okay with moving forward PGRR117
  • 02:29:54
    and then PGRR120 was new for us. This is on
  • 02:29:58
    SSO prevention. And that was tabled and referred to PLWG
  • 02:30:02
    and DWG.
  • 02:30:07
    Next slide, a couple more items to report on.
  • 02:30:12
    Right. So NOGRR271 was related to 1257.
  • 02:30:16
    And then this is probably the second time you've seen the DWG
  • 02:30:21
    procedural manual on here saying it was approved. But there were some.
  • 02:30:26
    There was some language that was not part of the red lines that was
  • 02:30:29
    inadvertently removed.
  • 02:30:32
    And so that was added back in. So we needed to approve it again.
  • 02:30:38
    And then the next couple slides kind of show you what we're actively
  • 02:30:43
    working on.
  • 02:30:46
    So you can go ahead and scroll to that second page.
  • 02:30:53
    And then our next ROS is
  • 02:30:56
    December 5th. It will be webex only. So that's all I've got for you unless
  • 02:31:00
    you have some questions for me.
  • 02:31:04
    Any questions for Katie?
  • 02:31:08
    All right. And Katie, thank you.
  • 02:31:12
    ROS and PLWG, I know did a lot of work
  • 02:31:16
    on 1247 on the consolidated
  • 02:31:19
    timeline and had the special PLWG and a lot of
  • 02:31:22
    discussion at ROS. So we appreciate that for
  • 02:31:27
    voting items, I believe we did PGRR107 with NPRR1180. So we would be looking to recommend
  • 02:31:31
    approval of PGRR118
  • 02:31:36
    as recommended by ROS in the 11.7 ROS report
  • 02:31:39
    and recommend approval of NOGRR268 as recommended
  • 02:31:43
    by ROS in the 11.7 ROS report. Anybody have any issues
  • 02:31:46
    with those going on the computer ballot?
  • 02:31:50
    All right,
  • 02:31:57
    seems like we're losing some folks. Is this a good
  • 02:32:01
    time for a 5 or 10 minute break or
  • 02:32:04
    no, don't roll your eyes at me.
  • 02:32:09
    We have seen more and more empty seats.
  • Item 9 - WMS Report - Eric Blakey
    02:32:13
    All right, let's keep going then, Eric. Let's go to
  • 02:32:16
    the WMS report.
  • 02:32:20
    All right. Good afternoon, tac. Eric Blakey. Pardon?
  • 02:32:27
    Is Co op Chair of WMS this year.
  • 02:32:30
    Hope to be brief. Just a couple of updates on
  • 02:32:34
    our WMS meeting from November 6th.
  • 02:32:38
    We had the Q3 unregistered DG
  • 02:32:42
    report just to say that total of
  • 02:32:46
    2724 megawatts installed,
  • 02:32:50
    an 80 megawatt increase over Q2 20,
  • 02:32:54
    24 settlement stability report was also
  • 02:32:57
    provided and there included
  • 02:33:02
    provided and there included
  • 02:33:07
    that no price changes in Q3.
  • 02:33:10
    And we spent a lot of time talking about the capacity demand report
  • 02:33:14
    that is coming out in a few weeks.
  • 02:33:17
    Pete Warrenkin gave a presentation and
  • 02:33:21
    a mock up of the new report and we look forward to seeing that come
  • 02:33:25
    out. There's a lot of really good work on that and
  • 02:33:29
    I think we're going to be pleased with the changes.
  • 02:33:32
    The other item to highlight is the CRR auction
  • 02:33:36
    revenue distribution issue.
  • 02:33:39
    This was something that ERCOT identified
  • 02:33:43
    back in July and they
  • 02:33:46
    were looking for some guidance or preference from WMS.
  • 02:33:51
    We referred this to WMWG and
  • 02:33:55
    they had some really good discussions.
  • 02:33:59
    I guess his background. NPRR1030 addressed
  • 02:34:03
    an issue with respect to the allocation of the card allocation methodology.
  • 02:34:09
    And so rather than go
  • 02:34:13
    into the details of that, I'll just say that it
  • 02:34:18
    led to some issues that ERCOT was concerned about and
  • 02:34:25
    the group met and we came up with three
  • 02:34:29
    different options. The IMM would
  • 02:34:35
    shift the card allocation to an average of the 500 peak demand
  • 02:34:38
    hours in each month. Georgetown would allocate the present
  • 02:34:42
    year monthly card disbursements based on last year's
  • 02:34:45
    4 CP averages used for T costs.
  • 02:34:49
    And Vistra uses a two factor approach to take into
  • 02:34:52
    account the top 60 to 120 hours per month with
  • 02:34:56
    some specific logic making it difficult to predict.
  • 02:34:59
    So I thought this was a very good example of our subcommittee
  • 02:35:03
    and working group working with ERCOT and
  • 02:35:07
    the IMM to come up with some options
  • 02:35:10
    that we kind of work through before the actual
  • 02:35:14
    protocol request change is filed
  • 02:35:18
    and hopefully that process move faster. We will have
  • 02:35:22
    a vote on these options. Members will vote on
  • 02:35:27
    which preference they have at our next meeting.
  • 02:35:33
    This is our list of tabled revision requests.
  • 02:35:36
    The only real change was 1250. We voted to endorse approval
  • 02:35:41
    as submitted. Our next meeting is December 4th. You're all welcome
  • 02:35:46
    to be there and any questions,
  • 02:35:51
    any questions for Eric.
  • 02:35:57
    Okay, we are onto the
  • 02:36:01
    credit Finance subgroup report.
  • Item 10 - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager
    02:36:14
    Hello everybody. This is.
  • 02:36:18
    Yep. Brenden Sager here. I drove the 15 minutes
  • 02:36:22
    to be here with you all today for my last pack
  • 02:36:26
    presentation on behalf of CFSG. So it's very nice to
  • 02:36:29
    see you all in person. Okay,
  • 02:36:33
    let's go here. Next slide please.
  • 02:36:37
    Oh, oh, do I, oh, do I. You're live on this laptop. Oh,
  • 02:36:40
    nice. Okay, sorry. Page down. Okay,
  • 02:36:44
    yep. Rookie.
  • 02:36:47
    Air this. This screen is mirroring that one. So whatever.
  • 02:36:51
    Yeah, my contacts are a little. I can put this over.
  • 02:36:59
    Good to get. Okay, so this was from our November
  • 02:37:02
    15th meeting. We had some operational NPRRs
  • 02:37:06
    to discuss without credit impact. We discussed our EAL change
  • 02:37:10
    proposals, system reporting and enhancement credit
  • 02:37:13
    updates and the regular credit exposures.
  • 02:37:18
    Okay, so I mentioned this last time.
  • 02:37:22
    ERCOT credit is implementing 1184
  • 02:37:26
    which was presented by Tanaska. It's the management
  • 02:37:30
    of interest collateral received by ERCOT and owed to counterparties that
  • 02:37:34
    was moved from annual to monthly. ERCOT presented
  • 02:37:38
    their reports that they are, you'll see in starting
  • 02:37:43
    in December on this. So there could be some formatting changes
  • 02:37:47
    and so on that users of those reports
  • 02:37:50
    should be familiar with in case they're copying and pasting them.
  • 02:37:53
    But, and they discussed, we discussed automated
  • 02:37:57
    emails to you will be seeing counterparty credit
  • 02:38:00
    contacts whenever there's a change in LCs or surety
  • 02:38:04
    bonds and yep.
  • 02:38:07
    Please reach out to ERCOT if you have any questions but maybe let folks know
  • 02:38:10
    they're going to be some formatting changes in their reports.
  • 02:38:14
    I'll go through this quickly. The estimate aggregate liability I talked
  • 02:38:17
    about this last time. The we
  • 02:38:21
    are. This is basically the formula that drives collateral postings to
  • 02:38:24
    ERCOT. It has, you know, five basic components.
  • 02:38:28
    Now you know, the key driver tends to be
  • 02:38:31
    the forward adjustment factor applied to the real
  • 02:38:35
    time liability. So this is, this is designed
  • 02:38:39
    to. When prices go up, there's a ratio of forward
  • 02:38:42
    prices to settlements that are applied to your invoice exposure.
  • 02:38:46
    And that works in anticipation of,
  • 02:38:49
    you know, rising prices and to protect the market from potential defaults.
  • 02:38:54
    So we had discussed
  • 02:38:57
    with ERCOT and ERCOT was proceeding ahead on a
  • 02:39:01
    new form for this which,
  • 02:39:04
    for this formula which used the forward adjustment factors but applied them
  • 02:39:08
    principally to the netted real time
  • 02:39:12
    and day ahead factors. So it was netting those you can
  • 02:39:16
    see here before day ahead was separate from the
  • 02:39:20
    max rtl. Here they're combined.
  • 02:39:23
    They made some other changes. They will be here
  • 02:39:27
    to talk to you about that in detail. However, at our last meeting ERCOT
  • 02:39:32
    proposed doing something a bit more simplified. And this
  • 02:39:36
    early on in our Discussions in reevaluating this algorithm,
  • 02:39:42
    I think Seth brought up, well, why not just something
  • 02:39:47
    we could do to avoid, you know, over collateral
  • 02:39:50
    posting is rather than take the max times
  • 02:39:54
    the highest invoice exposure in the look back period, just take
  • 02:39:58
    the highest combination of those two series of values.
  • 02:40:04
    So and again, just going through the background of this a little bit,
  • 02:40:09
    this was changed from a sort of static seasonal adjustment
  • 02:40:13
    factor methodology
  • 02:40:16
    that was, it really didn't capture any of the
  • 02:40:21
    sort of dynamics of the market.
  • 02:40:23
    So what they implemented was a ratio of
  • 02:40:28
    forward prices to settle prices. That has
  • 02:40:32
    functioned well. However, in looking back at it,
  • 02:40:35
    what has happened is going into an event. So think about like
  • 02:40:39
    the summer of 2023, you know, you see this big pricing event,
  • 02:40:43
    prices come back down and then there's another one in the future where they come
  • 02:40:47
    up again and then they kind of go back down. But there's that going back
  • 02:40:51
    down part. There's a lot of volatility in those numbers.
  • 02:40:54
    And the way the way the formula is
  • 02:40:58
    designed is that volatility in those numbers is
  • 02:41:02
    applied against your highest historical,
  • 02:41:06
    basically your highest historical invoice exposure during the look back period of
  • 02:41:09
    40 days. So what they had noticed was,
  • 02:41:14
    what ERCOT had noticed in their analysis was we were seeing this kind of double
  • 02:41:18
    top phenomenon and basically
  • 02:41:24
    it's just related to kind of the volatility in the prices, but it's coming
  • 02:41:27
    out of an event and maybe there's some volatility in the forward prices,
  • 02:41:31
    but that volatility, that ratio forwards to
  • 02:41:35
    settled is getting applied against a historical invoice
  • 02:41:41
    exposure. And so it's not accurate. And sort of the bottom line here
  • 02:41:44
    is there have been instances where market participants are
  • 02:41:48
    over collateralizing millions, tens of millions of
  • 02:41:51
    dollars above their actual exposure.
  • 02:41:56
    And so that's something that
  • 02:41:59
    we wanted to avoid. And also in looking at this we wanted
  • 02:42:03
    to avoid obviously under collateralization that's the main thing. That's what we're here to do.
  • 02:42:06
    We're here to protect the market.
  • 02:42:09
    So ERCOT looked at, you know, six, 10 different scenarios of
  • 02:42:14
    how they can improve this. But you know,
  • 02:42:17
    the first priority was to avoid any under collateralizations.
  • 02:42:23
    So going back, this is handy here,
  • 02:42:28
    going back to the way that the formula
  • 02:42:31
    originally worked. So you have the max
  • 02:42:35
    of the. Oh, whoops. Yep, that's the RF
  • 02:42:39
    applied into the max RTLE going back the
  • 02:42:43
    40 days. So now what it's doing is
  • 02:42:48
    it is just taking the max of the
  • 02:42:52
    combination of those two numbers on the same day and
  • 02:42:56
    that is the number that goes in Your look back period, this is good because
  • 02:43:01
    the rarely would those would the forward adjustment
  • 02:43:05
    factor and your highest exposure occur at the same time because
  • 02:43:09
    it's sort of looking forward. So this should,
  • 02:43:12
    it should protect the market from
  • 02:43:16
    defaults and invoice exposure, but it should also substantially
  • 02:43:20
    eliminate this problem with over collateralization. Again, this can be
  • 02:43:24
    tens of millions of dollars.
  • 02:43:28
    The other thing they brought up was the implementation
  • 02:43:32
    strategy and that is with the
  • 02:43:35
    original plan that we were going with where we would net real time and day
  • 02:43:38
    ahead, that's a heavy lift as far as implementing
  • 02:43:42
    rewriting code and doing that kind of stuff.
  • 02:43:46
    This proposal is actually very light and ERCOT
  • 02:43:50
    is going to be down resources for the,
  • 02:43:53
    you know, real time co optimization. So they came up with
  • 02:43:57
    a concept of a plan to have
  • 02:44:01
    a sort of expedited implementation strategy which they
  • 02:44:05
    indicated they could do in the fairly near term.
  • 02:44:08
    And so we're going to have a meeting in
  • 02:44:11
    December and discuss that. But I guess my
  • 02:44:15
    personal view about it is, you know,
  • 02:44:19
    if we have another 20, 23 summer and we
  • 02:44:22
    can get this sort of smaller,
  • 02:44:25
    scaled down version of this in, it'd be
  • 02:44:29
    good to get that in before the summer because again, it's potentially
  • 02:44:32
    tens of millions of dollars. So, so I think the goal here is to
  • 02:44:36
    us for, to vote it out in support of our
  • 02:44:40
    committee next week and then they
  • 02:44:43
    will be. ERCOT Credit will present to
  • 02:44:47
    this August body in January and
  • 02:44:51
    they'll have a full, you know, soup to nuts presentation and they
  • 02:44:54
    would like your support obviously to be able to move ahead on this.
  • 02:44:58
    But you know, if I'm not endorsing going
  • 02:45:03
    quickly, but if it does get
  • 02:45:07
    tied up, which is perfectly reasonable,
  • 02:45:11
    there could be substantial delays resulting from the
  • 02:45:15
    implementation of the real time co optimization.
  • 02:45:18
    So that's all on that.
  • 02:45:22
    We looked at these NPRRs, they're all operational. I won't go through them one
  • 02:45:26
    by one. As far as the monthly highlights, total expense
  • 02:45:30
    potential exposure remained flat at 1.73
  • 02:45:34
    billion. Real time and day ahead prices were flat.
  • 02:45:37
    Discretionary collateral we will show in a
  • 02:45:41
    minute. It went, it dropped from 3.92
  • 02:45:44
    to 3.82 billion and there were no unusual calls.
  • 02:45:48
    This is sort of the historical collateral
  • 02:45:53
    postings relative to exposure, which would be
  • 02:45:57
    driven again by that EAL by
  • 02:46:00
    type. You can see mostly it's letters of credit. So there is
  • 02:46:03
    as usual substantial excess
  • 02:46:08
    in the market, but you need that for day ahead. Discretionary collateral
  • 02:46:12
    is how we describe that. This is looking pretty typical and
  • 02:46:18
    I, we talked about the. There was a problem with LC limits,
  • 02:46:22
    ERCOT increased those and there are.
  • 02:46:26
    There weren't any compliance issues. Just increasing those limits. Resolve those compliance
  • 02:46:30
    issues and that is all. All right,
  • 02:46:35
    well, this is not goodbye, but hostel approximately.
  • Item 10.1 - Approval of CFSG Membership
    02:46:42
    Okay. We did have a membership voting item and
  • 02:46:52
    I'm sorry I didn't get you credit themed cookies, but I
  • 02:46:56
    probably wouldn't even know what those look like. So I'll think on it and maybe,
  • 02:47:00
    maybe we'll have them balance
  • 02:47:04
    sheet or something.
  • 02:47:09
    Okay. Can we put the added member to
  • 02:47:12
    the credit finance subgroup on the combo ballot?
  • 02:47:17
    Brian, are you trying to make a comment?
  • 02:47:21
    I wanted to. I worked with Brennan for a long time and
  • 02:47:24
    I just appreciate all of the exuberance he
  • 02:47:28
    brought to the credit finance subgroup.
  • 02:47:31
    Also support eliminating the double. I think
  • 02:47:35
    that seems like a good enhancement and just.
  • 02:47:38
    Thank you, man. Thank you. Great.
  • 02:47:43
    Thanks. It was great to see you in person, Brendan. So.
  • 02:47:49
    All right, Bill, just wanted to
  • 02:47:53
    second that Brendan was the first ever chair
  • 02:47:57
    of the cfsg. That's historic, man.
  • 02:48:01
    Congratulations. I'm also excited about getting Don back. I don't have to remember we.
  • 02:48:06
    Don has been a part of the credit working group for a long time too.
  • 02:48:09
    So. Thank you, Brendan. That's true. Huh? Because this is.
  • 02:48:13
    We just started the credit finance subgroup 23.
  • 02:48:20
    Okay, cool. Well, you'll come back,
  • 02:48:24
    right?
  • 02:48:33
    Is that Latin?
  • 02:48:36
    Okay, let's move on to.
  • Item 12 - ERCOT Reports
    02:48:39
    Let's go to ERCOT reports. We have Catherine
  • 02:48:43
    with the segment membership discussion.
  • Item 12.1 - Segment Membership Discussion - Katherine Gross
    02:48:54
    Hello, I'm Katherine Gross with the ERCOT Legal department.
  • 02:48:58
    And today I was going to go over some
  • 02:49:02
    information about segment membership. We had talked about
  • 02:49:05
    this at the September TAC meeting, so I'm just following up on
  • 02:49:08
    that.
  • 02:49:15
    So I was going to give some background on the current segments
  • 02:49:18
    and then also give some information about how the
  • 02:49:22
    segment makeup has changed since 2014.
  • 02:49:26
    But some key takeaway takeaways is as
  • 02:49:29
    we discussed in September, if stakeholders want to
  • 02:49:33
    explore changing segment structure,
  • 02:49:36
    ERCOT can facilitate that. And we had talked about
  • 02:49:39
    workshops that could be held starting maybe after the
  • 02:49:43
    holidays. I'm going to present some information
  • 02:49:46
    about just how data has changed over the last
  • 02:49:50
    10 years. Of course,
  • 02:49:53
    the generation that we have in ERCOT has changed a
  • 02:49:57
    lot in the last 10 years. So I'll present some data on that. And then
  • 02:50:00
    also the big takeaway is the industrial consumer segment
  • 02:50:04
    has changed as well as over the
  • 02:50:07
    last 10 years. The total number of membership applications that we've
  • 02:50:10
    been getting. And just a reminder that
  • 02:50:14
    any changes that are taken with the segment composition,
  • 02:50:18
    that would have to be a bylaw amendment. So again
  • 02:50:22
    we had talked about this in September. It had come up because
  • 02:50:26
    as we at that point were about to open our annual membership
  • 02:50:30
    application process, there is this question about where data
  • 02:50:33
    centers and cryptocurrency miners should go.
  • 02:50:37
    And what we talked about is that they didn't fit neatly into
  • 02:50:41
    the bylaws definition of either industrial consumer
  • 02:50:45
    segment or the large commercial consumer segment. But based on
  • 02:50:48
    ERCOT's interpretation of the bylaws, they fit best into the
  • 02:50:52
    industrial segment. And so we asked for the 2025
  • 02:50:56
    membership application, which at that point was about to start. We asked that
  • 02:51:01
    those entities put themselves into the industrial
  • 02:51:04
    segment and we could talk about a solution
  • 02:51:08
    for the following year. Just a reminder,
  • 02:51:12
    it had been in the Public Utility Regulatory
  • 02:51:16
    act or pura. It had been dictated the
  • 02:51:19
    segments that ERCOT needed to have and that's where that came from.
  • 02:51:23
    But in 2021, Senate Bill 2
  • 02:51:27
    took out that language from Peora. So now it's just in our bylaws.
  • 02:51:33
    And I'm going to give a caveat.
  • 02:51:36
    When these slides were being prepared, the 2025
  • 02:51:40
    membership application process hadn't yet concluded. So all
  • 02:51:44
    of this is going to go up to 2024. But you can see
  • 02:51:47
    that if you're looking at 2014 through
  • 02:51:51
    2024, the membership,
  • 02:51:55
    the total number of members that we had has gone up pretty,
  • 02:52:00
    pretty steadily, I guess.
  • 02:52:03
    But what I will say is that for 2025,
  • 02:52:08
    which is not on this slide, we had a total of 326
  • 02:52:12
    members. So it did go back down a little. But still
  • 02:52:16
    the last two years, 2024 and 2025, those numbers
  • 02:52:20
    have been the largest of all of these years that are up here.
  • 02:52:25
    You all are on tac, so you should know this or this
  • 02:52:29
    should just be refresher, but these are the seats for
  • 02:52:33
    TAC and the voting. Here's a
  • 02:52:37
    slide for RMS, ROS and WMS and
  • 02:52:40
    then the information for PRS.
  • 02:52:45
    So looking at 2024 and comparing
  • 02:52:49
    that to 2014, there are some general trends.
  • 02:52:54
    The independent generators increased.
  • 02:53:00
    I'm sorry, the. I'm trying to remember then.
  • 02:53:06
    Yeah, the independent generators did increase in
  • 02:53:09
    total number and went up about 4 percentage points of
  • 02:53:14
    the total share. And that is
  • 02:53:18
    also similar for the industrial consumer segment.
  • 02:53:21
    And then another notable thing is that comparing those
  • 02:53:25
    two snapshots in time, the rep segment went
  • 02:53:29
    down about 5% of the total membership share.
  • 02:53:33
    If you compare just 2023 to 2024,
  • 02:53:38
    a notable trend that I saw was that
  • 02:53:41
    the industrial consumer segment had gone up about 3
  • 02:53:45
    percentage points of the total membership share.
  • 02:53:49
    And again, if there if people want more discussion
  • 02:53:53
    on this, I can Update this for 2025 now
  • 02:53:56
    that I have all of that information.
  • 02:54:00
    And then this isn't membership specific
  • 02:54:04
    information, but this is just data on how in the last
  • 02:54:08
    10 years or so the composition of generation has changed.
  • 02:54:15
    And then notably like in 2014,
  • 02:54:18
    there were no cryptocurrency centers or data centers in
  • 02:54:22
    the industrial consumer segment. And where it says today
  • 02:54:26
    that's 2024. For the 2024 membership,
  • 02:54:30
    there were nine. And also noticed
  • 02:54:35
    you see those entities in the commercial consumer
  • 02:54:39
    segment in 2024. Again, we told them for 2025
  • 02:54:43
    not to put themselves in that segment.
  • 02:54:49
    And so those are just some general trends.
  • 02:54:52
    There's probably other data points that might be
  • 02:54:55
    helpful that would show how things have changed in the last 10 or
  • 02:54:59
    whatever years. If people have ideas about things
  • 02:55:03
    that would be helpful for a conversation,
  • 02:55:06
    I'm happy to help with that. But I think if
  • 02:55:10
    people are still interested in like talking about this, I think
  • 02:55:13
    the next step would be to schedule like
  • 02:55:17
    a workshop or something probably in January.
  • 02:55:25
    Okay. Bill, I think
  • 02:55:28
    there's a lot to discuss on this.
  • 02:55:32
    Yeah, we haven't changed our segments ever, so I mean our
  • 02:55:36
    markets changed significantly in 20 years. So I
  • 02:55:40
    appreciate you guys bringing this to our attention and teeing
  • 02:55:43
    up the possibility of a discussion. I think we need to have one.
  • 02:55:54
    Bob. Yeah, there is a lot of
  • 02:55:57
    data in there to put. You're right, Bill. Things have changed
  • 02:56:00
    a lot. Thing I want to keep bringing up though,
  • 02:56:03
    every time we talk about this is we have to be careful
  • 02:56:07
    of balance. And anything we do is going
  • 02:56:11
    to be a long drawn out deal to make
  • 02:56:14
    sure that, that that balance remains in place
  • 02:56:19
    and no segment or group has a heavier weight than
  • 02:56:23
    the other one trying to improve things. And that was the battle. You know,
  • 02:56:26
    you were here whenever we had the changes to PURA
  • 02:56:30
    over at the legislature changing into independence and doing everything else.
  • 02:56:34
    We tried to maintain balance all the way through all of those changes.
  • 02:56:38
    And that's going to be really difficult. I think when we start looking and
  • 02:56:42
    trying to change this without turning this into
  • 02:56:45
    a, an SPP mopsy where every member is on
  • 02:56:49
    it, you know, which is unmanageable.
  • 02:56:52
    But sorry,
  • 02:57:03
    John Ross Hubbard. Yeah, to Bob
  • 02:57:06
    and Bill's points, I think this is an important conversation that
  • 02:57:10
    that will take a lot of finessing. So I
  • 02:57:13
    think it's definitely worth having that and having that sooner rather than later. So hopefully
  • 02:57:18
    we can work something out for 2026.
  • 02:57:20
    Thanks,
  • 02:57:28
    Chris. Thanks, Catherine, for this. I'll echo that. I think
  • 02:57:32
    it's an important subject to talk about and to revisit and look at
  • 02:57:36
    because it's been a long time and there's been a significant difference
  • 02:57:40
    of what's happening, growth in the different segments. So I think that's worthwhile.
  • 02:57:44
    One thing I'd ask, try to ask ERCOT if you could do
  • 02:57:47
    to maybe get us started in the right direction, is look
  • 02:57:50
    at what other ISOs are doing around the country and see if we could kind
  • 02:57:54
    of have a little presentation about that and maybe that would kick start some,
  • 02:57:58
    some discussions around that. And then along with
  • 02:58:02
    that is what the membership fees, as the
  • 02:58:05
    membership has increased, what's, what's happening with the membership
  • 02:58:08
    fees, what's that cover? Kind of the background behind that piece
  • 02:58:12
    of it as well. So we. Not today, but we can talk about that in
  • 02:58:15
    January, hopefully.
  • 02:58:25
    Okay,
  • 02:58:31
    Katherine, can you talk us through?
  • 02:58:34
    So this would need a bylaw change. Correct.
  • 02:58:38
    So that only needs board approval.
  • 02:58:43
    That is a good question. I do think the PUC has to.
  • 02:58:47
    Okay. Do you know, Ann, of that. Sorry,
  • 02:58:51
    It's. I think in section 13 of the bylaws,
  • 02:58:56
    it describes the amendment process.
  • 02:58:59
    Okay, but that, I know that doesn't need TAC
  • 02:59:02
    approval, but ERCOT's intention would be to
  • 02:59:06
    work with stakeholders throughout the year before
  • 02:59:11
    in order to present the Board a set of suggested bylaw
  • 02:59:15
    changes. I think so. Yeah. Lynn, Eric Schubert
  • 02:59:19
    here. I think we have to bring the Commission in on this.
  • 02:59:22
    At least at the end. This has policy implications
  • 02:59:26
    to turning to how the mix changes. So I think at least
  • 02:59:30
    a review and approval would be a good idea,
  • 02:59:34
    whether or not it's strictly part of the bylaws or not.
  • 02:59:38
    Food for thought. Okay, understood. I was just asking,
  • 02:59:42
    logistically, what is the process? What's the timeline?
  • 02:59:47
    So we. Okay, so we would,
  • 02:59:51
    I think ideally we would want, if particularly
  • 02:59:55
    the issue that Rose or that brought this up to begin with
  • 02:59:59
    was the data centers and cryptocurrency
  • 03:00:03
    centers is to be able to resolve that before the
  • 03:00:07
    next membership year starts.
  • 03:00:10
    So around like next
  • 03:00:13
    September to have a resolution of that at least.
  • 03:00:18
    Okay. Bob, is your card slop?
  • 03:00:22
    I put it back up. Okay, great. Yeah. No, just to
  • 03:00:25
    talk about. The bylaws are approved by the Commission. So I
  • 03:00:28
    think that that takes care of what Eric was talking about. In the end,
  • 03:00:33
    however, I'm not even remotely convinced that we would
  • 03:00:36
    ever be able to,
  • 03:00:39
    in this body, come up with a new structure
  • 03:00:43
    that we could all buy into. I just don't see that happening.
  • 03:00:47
    So I think the best route, at least for now,
  • 03:00:50
    which was just mentioned let's fix the immediate problem. We have,
  • 03:00:54
    we've done that before. If you look at, if you go back
  • 03:00:57
    through history, the last group we did that to,
  • 03:01:01
    oh, it was a consumer group, Remember,
  • 03:01:04
    we readjusted the consumer group and that's why they look like they do today.
  • 03:01:08
    And it looks like we may have to revamp that again to some degree.
  • 03:01:12
    But I would prefer from my perspective it'd be much easier, less controversial
  • 03:01:16
    to at least hit that, get that done and then we can look what's going
  • 03:01:20
    forward. And just my thoughts.
  • 03:01:25
    Okay. Chris, was your card up again? It was and then I took it down,
  • 03:01:28
    then I put it back up. Sorry about that. So I guess one of the
  • 03:01:31
    other things that kind of, as we were talking about that and Caitlin brought up
  • 03:01:35
    the bylaws, it kind of brought in my mind what is the benefit of
  • 03:01:38
    being a member. And so that's kind of one of the other things that I
  • 03:01:41
    think we probably need to put out there and kind of think about is what
  • 03:01:45
    do you get from membership of being a member? Because looking at some of the
  • 03:01:48
    segments, there's a lot of industrial consumers that are there, but there's a
  • 03:01:52
    lot of industrial consumers in Texas that aren't members. Same. There's no real
  • 03:01:56
    in use commercial, small or large commercial consumers that are
  • 03:02:00
    members. And so some of those have fallen out over
  • 03:02:03
    the years. And the question is why? And what's important for
  • 03:02:07
    people.
  • 03:02:16
    Okay, Mark, I just want to note for the
  • 03:02:19
    record that for the 2025 membership, we have 147
  • 03:02:25
    commercial consumer members who are cities and
  • 03:02:29
    other small and large commercial consumers of electricity.
  • 03:02:39
    Thank you. Chris, did you want to, you look
  • 03:02:42
    like you want to respond to that. I'd like to put an asterisk on that
  • 03:02:45
    and say yes, there's cities and water
  • 03:02:49
    districts, but there's no other end use consumers out there.
  • 03:02:52
    As far as I know,
  • 03:02:58
    we have 147 small
  • 03:03:01
    and large commercial consumers. Some of
  • 03:03:05
    them are small, some of them are large. They operate like water systems
  • 03:03:09
    that consume large amounts of electricity. And we work very
  • 03:03:13
    hard to have them engaged ERCOT and do our best to represent them.
  • 03:03:19
    Okay, thank you, that's great. Chris, do you want to
  • 03:03:22
    tell us how many retailers there there are for 2025?
  • 03:03:26
    How many REPs. Yes. Oh, that's fine. I was, I was joking
  • 03:03:32
    and Eric Schubert. Totally right. I just wanted to confirm that. I don't want to
  • 03:03:36
    presume to tell the commission you have to look at this or not. But I
  • 03:03:39
    think Barksdale beams here. I think staff will be
  • 03:03:42
    informed of this discussion. Really what I was getting at was
  • 03:03:47
    the sort of process, and maybe it's
  • 03:03:50
    my point now is that this does not need to be TAC approved.
  • 03:03:55
    So I think what we are thinking here is that
  • 03:03:59
    ERCOT is letting us collaborate with them on their proposal.
  • 03:04:03
    That would go to the board and only needs to be changed in bylaw,
  • 03:04:07
    so only approved by the board and the PUC,
  • 03:04:12
    I believe. And I just want to make sure we understand what
  • 03:04:16
    the mechanism is and when we expect that to happen.
  • 03:04:21
    Yeah, I think that in just I'm pulling up the
  • 03:04:24
    bylaws on my phone, it talks about for an
  • 03:04:28
    amendment to the bylaw, that it specifically talks about a corporate
  • 03:04:31
    member suggesting amendment amendments to the bylaws. So I
  • 03:04:36
    may have misspoke when I said that, you know, it would be ERCOT's
  • 03:04:39
    proposal. I don't know that ERCOT necessarily has a
  • 03:04:43
    strong opinion, although we want it to be fair,
  • 03:04:47
    the outcome, but I think that we would facilitate the
  • 03:04:51
    discussion, see where that goes. And it might be
  • 03:04:55
    that to follow the process and the bylaws, that someone
  • 03:04:58
    has to step up and make a proposal and
  • 03:05:03
    that that would go to a board meeting according to this.
  • 03:05:06
    And then I agree that it makes sense for the PUC
  • 03:05:10
    to review that. But I think that if we have
  • 03:05:14
    a workshop in January, I can kind
  • 03:05:18
    of update these numbers that are on these slides and then
  • 03:05:22
    have more of a,
  • 03:05:27
    A, I guess a timeline of, of or of
  • 03:05:30
    what would happen. I think the process would be good. I think,
  • 03:05:34
    you know, to the extent ERCOT has a point of view, because it was sort
  • 03:05:37
    of my understanding that because
  • 03:05:40
    of, you know, where to put the cryptocurrency people,
  • 03:05:45
    we sort of needed to do something. Right. And so if that's not
  • 03:05:49
    the position, if the position is, ERCOT's fine,
  • 03:05:52
    you know, it's not urgent to ERCOT. Maybe that frames
  • 03:05:56
    our discussion differently or we can take longer on it. But my understanding
  • 03:06:00
    from our last conversation, which is why we started this so early,
  • 03:06:04
    was ERCOT felt the need to have a new classification
  • 03:06:08
    or resolve that issue for 2026 membership.
  • 03:06:12
    I do think at the very least the bylaws could be
  • 03:06:15
    just that the definitions of industrial
  • 03:06:20
    consumer could be fixed, understand? So that it's like very clear,
  • 03:06:25
    understand? So it seems like there's kind of a wide range of things
  • 03:06:29
    we could do. Yes. Okay. Any other
  • 03:06:33
    questions or comments?
  • 03:06:38
    Brian? Okay, I do
  • 03:06:41
    have one more thing just to think about and it has to do with
  • 03:06:48
    the exemption from.
  • 03:06:51
    The exemption
  • 03:06:57
    from the outage scheduling
  • 03:07:02
    for how you define Industrial consumer. Like there's an
  • 03:07:06
    exemption. If you're providing electricity for an exemption for an
  • 03:07:09
    industrial consumer, you could be exempted from that process. So that's
  • 03:07:13
    just one thing to think through as you're. You're making this definition.
  • 03:07:17
    That's all.
  • 03:07:20
    Okay. Okay,
  • 03:07:25
    Understood. So if we're adding something to the definition
  • 03:07:29
    of industrial consumer, what are all the things that follow
  • 03:07:33
    that? Okay.
  • 03:07:36
    Okay. Katherine, do you have what you need from us to.
  • 03:07:40
    I guess you'll come back in January. Yes. Awesome.
  • 03:07:44
    Or we'll schedule a workshop in January. In January.
  • 03:07:47
    Okay. Okay. All right.
  • 03:07:51
    I think we can move to our
  • 03:07:55
    next item, which is the price
  • 03:07:59
    correction November 1st and complete weekly
  • 03:08:04
    database load. I see Gordon on his way up.
  • Item 12.2 - Price Correction -Nov. 1, 2024 - Incomplete Weekly Database Load - Gordon Drake
    03:08:10
    Thank you very much. I'll just be giving a verbal update today.
  • 03:08:14
    I don't have a presentation, so.
  • 03:08:18
    My name is Gordon Drake. I'm the Director of Market Design and Analysis
  • 03:08:21
    at ERCOT and wanted to just present to
  • 03:08:25
    TAC on a potential price correction that we intend to bring
  • 03:08:28
    forward to the December R&M committee and December
  • 03:08:32
    board meeting for approval on November 1st.
  • 03:08:36
    As we were undertaking a routine weekly
  • 03:08:41
    database load for the network model, one of the
  • 03:08:44
    data transfer processes failed. And as a result, not all
  • 03:08:48
    of the modeling elements were carried forward into the
  • 03:08:52
    network model. This happened right around midnight on
  • 03:08:55
    November 1st. We identified the issue
  • 03:08:59
    just after noon on November 1st,
  • 03:09:03
    12:11pm and so real time intervals and
  • 03:09:06
    just real time, no impact today had, but real time intervals between 12:00am
  • 03:09:10
    and 12:30pm on November 1st were impacted.
  • 03:09:14
    We issued market notice on November 8th,
  • 03:09:18
    notifying the market of our intent to investigate for a
  • 03:09:22
    potential price correction and if so,
  • 03:09:25
    to take that to the board. And we issued a subsequent market
  • 03:09:28
    notice on November 12 with the results of our investigation
  • 03:09:33
    and our intention to seek approval at the December board
  • 03:09:37
    meetings. We have
  • 03:09:40
    two sets of criteria that we evaluate these price corrections against
  • 03:09:44
    when we are contemplating taking them to the board. And it
  • 03:09:48
    is based on the impact to a single counterparty,
  • 03:09:51
    both an absolute dollar impact as
  • 03:09:54
    well as a percentage impact of their
  • 03:09:58
    settlement amounts. The first Criteria is a 2%
  • 03:10:02
    relative impact. Sorry. And also
  • 03:10:06
    a $20,000 absolute value impact. The second
  • 03:10:10
    criteria is whether it is a 20% or greater impact
  • 03:10:14
    and also a $2,000 or greater impact to,
  • 03:10:18
    as I say, a single counterparty. There were
  • 03:10:21
    two counterparties that were impacted under the second criteria, the 20%
  • 03:10:26
    or $2,000 and
  • 03:10:30
    the maximum amount that any single counterparty was exposed
  • 03:10:33
    to that we'll see was $2,758.
  • 03:10:39
    And the criteria for the percentage was just more than 45%.
  • 03:10:43
    So that was. Of the two that were impacted, one was impacted in a maximum
  • 03:10:47
    amount of just shy of $3,000.
  • 03:10:51
    And the total impact to our overall ERCOT market settlement statements
  • 03:10:55
    was just shy of $2,000. It was $1,977.
  • 03:11:00
    So a very small impact in the overall market.
  • 03:11:03
    Less than we
  • 03:11:08
    will be bringing forward the price
  • 03:11:12
    correction to the Reliability markets committee on December 2,
  • 03:11:15
    seeking a recommendation from the committee to the full board to approve
  • 03:11:19
    the price correction on December 3rd. I'm happy to answer
  • 03:11:22
    any questions.
  • 03:11:30
    Any questions for Gordon.
  • 03:11:35
    Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.
  • 03:11:44
    Okay, now we have the Oncor
  • 03:11:48
    Delaware Basin stages 3 and 4 RPG project.
  • Item 12.3 - Oncor Delaware Basin Stages 3 and 4 RPG Project – EIR Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam
    03:11:58
    Good afternoon everyone. Prabhu Gnanam I'm here to present
  • 03:12:02
    the Oncor Delaware Basin Stage 3 and 4 RPG
  • 03:12:06
    projects.
  • 03:12:10
    So overview of this project this project was
  • 03:12:13
    submitted by Oncor with an estimated cost of $202.2
  • 03:12:18
    million that will require CCN.
  • 03:12:22
    The primary need for the project is to address reliability issues in several
  • 03:12:26
    counties in the Far West, Culberson, Loving, Greece and Ward counties.
  • 03:12:31
    This project was initially identified in the ERCOT
  • 03:12:35
    2019 Delaware Basin Study. There were several
  • 03:12:38
    stages. Stage 3 and Stage 4 were identified in the 2019
  • 03:12:42
    study to address the load growth in the Delaware Basin area.
  • 03:12:46
    In addition to that with all the new additions load projections,
  • 03:12:50
    we also added some local project to the study area which is listed
  • 03:12:54
    Here with the IDC L1, L3 and L5
  • 03:12:57
    which is part of the 2024 Permian Basin reliability need that was
  • 03:13:01
    identified recently again
  • 03:13:06
    on the tier 1 requirements. As per the protocols this
  • 03:13:10
    falls, this project exceeds $100 million in wood
  • 03:13:14
    driver require a CCN. So the requirement
  • 03:13:18
    is ERCOT shall present to TAC on the findings and any comments from
  • 03:13:22
    TAC shall be included in the board presentation.
  • 03:13:27
    The project reliability need listed here,
  • 03:13:30
    we looked at our planning criteria and the NIRC criteria
  • 03:13:34
    and we did identify several voltage violations and
  • 03:13:39
    also in addition to that, you know, unsolved issues or
  • 03:13:43
    divergence of power flow issues under certain
  • 03:13:47
    NARC category contingencies.
  • 03:13:52
    So as part of the protocol we are also required to look at SSR screening
  • 03:13:56
    for this identified set of upgrades and
  • 03:14:00
    we found there was no adverse impact for the SSR impact for
  • 03:14:04
    existing or the planned resources in the area.
  • 03:14:09
    Similar to other RPG projects, Tier one projects we look at also
  • 03:14:13
    congestion analysis and sensitivity analysis as required by the Planning
  • 03:14:16
    Guide Section 3.1.3.
  • 03:14:19
    Based on this analysis there are two specific ones. One is looking at the congestion
  • 03:14:23
    analysis and also looking at whether
  • 03:14:28
    the future generation or load Scaling that's
  • 03:14:32
    been used in the or the planning cases would have an impact
  • 03:14:35
    on the project. Based on the studies, we did
  • 03:14:39
    not see any new congestion in the area with the addition of stage three
  • 03:14:43
    and stage four. And also potentially we did not
  • 03:14:47
    identify any impact with the future plan generations or
  • 03:14:50
    load scaling that's in the case.
  • 03:14:56
    Based on the review, ERCOT will recommend to the board the
  • 03:15:00
    Delaware Oncor, Delaware Basin Stage 3 and Stage
  • 03:15:04
    4 projects to meet the reliability needs in several
  • 03:15:07
    counties in the forest zone. The projected
  • 03:15:11
    implementation or upgrade in service date for
  • 03:15:15
    this project is June of 2027 and the estimated cost
  • 03:15:18
    is $202.2 million. The next
  • 03:15:22
    slide details the recommendations,
  • 03:15:25
    the aspects of the upgrades in the proposed project.
  • 03:15:29
    So I'm going to skip this and just kind of point that in this
  • 03:15:33
    map here, the major portions of the project are
  • 03:15:37
    the new addition of a 345kV line from Riverton
  • 03:15:41
    to Drill hole that will require the new right of way, which is
  • 03:15:44
    22 miles of new right of way. And also as part of that upgrade
  • 03:15:48
    this drill hole station with adding two 345kV
  • 03:15:53
    transfer transformers and it will add
  • 03:15:56
    the existing line to Riverton to All Hill
  • 03:16:00
    to Horse hollow. There's a 138 that will be looped into
  • 03:16:03
    this drill hole station and move some of
  • 03:16:06
    the equipments from this drill hole station capacitors to
  • 03:16:09
    this new expanded station. In addition to that, there is
  • 03:16:13
    also a segment from Riverton to Horsehead Draw to Sand
  • 03:16:17
    Lake where the existing 138kV line will be
  • 03:16:21
    upgraded to a 345kV line. And in addition Oncor
  • 03:16:25
    will add another double circuit 138kV line
  • 03:16:29
    and existing right of way that will connect between Riverton and
  • 03:16:32
    Sand Lake and loop into the Horse Head to Draw substation.
  • 03:16:37
    So that's kind of a high level overview of the project.
  • 03:16:41
    I believe that's my last slide. Be happy
  • 03:16:45
    to answer any questions. Thank you.
  • 03:16:50
    Any questions?
  • 03:16:53
    Don't see any. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
  • 03:16:57
    We would be looking to put on the combo ballot,
  • 03:17:00
    I guess to endorse Oncor Delaware Basin Stage 3 and 4
  • 03:17:04
    project to address reliability needs in the
  • 03:17:07
    Culberson, Lavigne, Reeves, in Ward counties and the Far west Weather zone.
  • 03:17:13
    So all of that need to be in the motion.
  • 03:17:16
    Okay. Anybody have an issue
  • 03:17:19
    with putting that on the combo ballot?
  • 03:17:22
    Okay. All right,
  • 03:17:27
    we have the MDRPOC
  • 03:17:31
    update and outage performance review.
  • Item 12.4 - MDRPOC Update and Outage Performance Review - Fred Huang
    03:17:34
    Up next,
  • 03:18:00
    operations. I think today I kind of provide a kind of status
  • 03:18:04
    update for the MDRPOC.
  • 03:18:07
    There are really two items. Try to cover in this
  • 03:18:11
    update. The first one is per the current MDRPOC
  • 03:18:14
    methodology we are going to provide a kind of outage
  • 03:18:18
    performance Overview for year 2023 and
  • 03:18:21
    also try to share with the group in terms of our current
  • 03:18:26
    assessment in terms of the impact of the long term forecast to
  • 03:18:30
    MDRPOC and looking for the update and comments as well.
  • 03:18:36
    So per our current methodology I think we
  • 03:18:39
    are required to provide updated to this
  • 03:18:43
    group in terms of the previous year essentially 2023.
  • 03:18:46
    What is a high level overview about the outage performance?
  • 03:18:50
    So the first one is what's the aggregated
  • 03:18:53
    resource outages? How does it looks like in
  • 03:18:57
    2023? And also as a comparison about the calculated
  • 03:19:01
    MDRPOC versus our approved plan outage and
  • 03:19:05
    what's the impact as well. And along this process we
  • 03:19:08
    also kind of in previous meeting we asked for the comments. So we do
  • 03:19:12
    get a comment ask us to look into the how
  • 03:19:16
    can we tie the associated risk in
  • 03:19:20
    terms of calculated MDRPOC to support the system reliability.
  • 03:19:26
    So the first slide provide a very high level Overview
  • 03:19:29
    about year 2023, our aggregated hours in terms of resource
  • 03:19:33
    outages. I think the chart on the top include all
  • 03:19:37
    the resource types. I just want to highlight it especially
  • 03:19:40
    for the renewable projects. The capacity here show it is
  • 03:19:44
    their outage capacity not necessary
  • 03:19:48
    layer output potentials. So kind of to highlight
  • 03:19:51
    it and you will see kind of February
  • 03:19:55
    in 2023 laser spike and that's related to the ice
  • 03:19:58
    storm we had in 2023. So overall
  • 03:20:02
    we think like the trend is very similar to all the
  • 03:20:06
    previous years. And if you look a little bit deeper for
  • 03:20:10
    the non IR where the
  • 03:20:13
    thermal units fluid that could be subject to the MDR
  • 03:20:18
    POC as well. So really what you can see in the lower one,
  • 03:20:22
    the blue one shows the IRR plane outages
  • 03:20:26
    megawatt at each time and
  • 03:20:30
    the non IR the maintenance outage together with its
  • 03:20:34
    force outage as well. So essentially the difference between the
  • 03:20:37
    top and the lower one is we screw IRR kind of provide a little
  • 03:20:41
    bit inside of the essentially a thermal fluid.
  • 03:20:49
    Another review we did is we tried to look at it the MDR
  • 03:20:53
    POC calculated which was applicable at a time
  • 03:20:56
    for each day in 2023 with
  • 03:21:00
    the planned thermal outages kind of status.
  • 03:21:03
    So as you can see the light blue is really
  • 03:21:07
    the applicable MDRPOC in 2023 for each day
  • 03:21:11
    and the gray one is the actual recurred thermal
  • 03:21:16
    plane outages for each day in 2023.
  • 03:21:21
    On top of it we also try to Check There are
  • 03:21:24
    sometimes there are times where the plant outage when people
  • 03:21:27
    took a plan outg they start to recognize there's some additional component
  • 03:21:31
    need extra time to also take opportunity
  • 03:21:35
    to fix it to do even better maintenance. So we call
  • 03:21:38
    it extension of our plan outages.
  • 03:21:42
    So in our category we treat it as a false outage but in
  • 03:21:45
    this case we try to see for our MDRPOC perspective assuming
  • 03:21:50
    if that pen outage have a good estimation about
  • 03:21:54
    your really need duration are we still good enough to support
  • 03:21:58
    your outage need? So overall you can see I
  • 03:22:02
    would say even the MDRPOC should be based
  • 03:22:05
    on our review is sufficient not only to cover your original
  • 03:22:09
    schedule plan outages also be good enough to support your
  • 03:22:13
    I'll call it unavoidable extension where you see the need on top of
  • 03:22:17
    the plan outage Request another one
  • 03:22:21
    to highlight you do see there are few days
  • 03:22:25
    the plan outage may exceed the
  • 03:22:29
    actual MDRPOC. I think that's kind of the nature of
  • 03:22:33
    how we involve MDRPOC versus how we planned.
  • 03:22:36
    I think the key takeaway is for any plant outage already
  • 03:22:40
    approved and because of MDRPOC change
  • 03:22:44
    later make your approval capacity exceeded.
  • 03:22:47
    We will not withdraw. We will continue to support your plan outages.
  • 03:22:51
    I think that's kind of the case keep that's a practice way has been conducted
  • 03:22:55
    all the time.
  • 03:22:59
    Then I will kind of shift to the current MDR
  • 03:23:03
    POC calculation Consider the impact of the updated long
  • 03:23:07
    term forecast. So this is the one I think the group may see this
  • 03:23:10
    one kind of quite a bit already. So the
  • 03:23:13
    light blue is the long term forecast.
  • 03:23:17
    We have been used in our current MDRPOC calculations essentially
  • 03:23:21
    kind of updated last year.
  • 03:23:25
    The gray one is the most recent updated long term load forecast.
  • 03:23:28
    Obviously a lot of discussion today in the previous stakeholder meetings about
  • 03:23:32
    the significant growth. So that's how we start to look into the impact to the
  • 03:23:36
    POC. I think obviously the key takeaway
  • 03:23:40
    is based on this updated long
  • 03:23:43
    term low forecast we definitely see the significant increase
  • 03:23:47
    on low which will be reflected as an
  • 03:23:51
    impact to potentially reduce the MDRPOC.
  • 03:23:55
    And I think the goal for MDRPOC is try
  • 03:23:58
    to see how we can maintain sufficient outage window
  • 03:24:03
    to support all the required plan outages. At the same time
  • 03:24:06
    we also can maintain sufficient capacity for real time operations.
  • 03:24:12
    So based on this finding and based on all our investigation in
  • 03:24:16
    the last several months I think today we would like to provide an updated to
  • 03:24:20
    the group. So today based on the methodology
  • 03:24:23
    we have is Kind of it is deterministic approach.
  • 03:24:27
    We based on the historical performance, based on the capacity we
  • 03:24:31
    have and we do essentially plus
  • 03:24:35
    minus calculation to determine what is the right number or necessary
  • 03:24:38
    number. I think the missing part is those number
  • 03:24:42
    calculated cannot be easily quantified in terms of
  • 03:24:46
    risk label. This is important when we
  • 03:24:50
    start to see the impact of MDRPOC got reduced.
  • 03:24:54
    So similar to the Lemora. I think we
  • 03:24:57
    have explored this idea to see how
  • 03:25:01
    we can apply this probabilistic approach to
  • 03:25:05
    calculate MDRPOC for the future.
  • 03:25:08
    So we start to do some like
  • 03:25:12
    a pro the concept work behind the scene right now. But I think
  • 03:25:16
    the reason we go for this direction is we can. I think there are some
  • 03:25:19
    benefit. The first one is it will really help us
  • 03:25:24
    kind of quantify the risk label and in
  • 03:25:27
    a way we can kind of work with the group and stakeholders
  • 03:25:31
    to get your input to see with this kind of MDRPOC
  • 03:25:35
    calculation what is a associated risk and vice versa.
  • 03:25:39
    And also will help us to quantify the impact of
  • 03:25:43
    different segments such as low forecast or different
  • 03:25:47
    altitude trend got reflected in the historical performance as well.
  • 03:25:52
    And lastly it supposed to help
  • 03:25:55
    us to determine in order to maintain the sufficient MDR
  • 03:25:59
    POC for the plant outage required what could be the
  • 03:26:03
    associated risk behind.
  • 03:26:09
    So this slide against a concept only with our
  • 03:26:12
    current conceptual tool we had tested.
  • 03:26:17
    So essentially the slide try to show the
  • 03:26:21
    top one is our current MDRPOC and
  • 03:26:26
    if we try to mimic the same level of MDRPOC
  • 03:26:30
    we have today with the updated long term
  • 03:26:33
    low forecast, essentially you will see
  • 03:26:37
    I would say kind of not surprised on the lower left. You do see
  • 03:26:41
    the longer we look at further in the future you do see the increase of
  • 03:26:45
    a risk associated if we try to maintain the same level of MDR
  • 03:26:49
    POC today. So it's really the spirit
  • 03:26:53
    for us to look into this one, try to find a better
  • 03:26:56
    information and work with all of you to get your feedback to see how we
  • 03:27:00
    can best adjust and determine MDRPOC.
  • 03:27:07
    I think there's one more slide.
  • 03:27:10
    Okay, so in terms of next steps,
  • 03:27:14
    we will continue to develop this kind of
  • 03:27:18
    public risk based approach to Kaggle MDRPOC
  • 03:27:22
    and we plan to revise MDRPOC we
  • 03:27:25
    have today. And certainly we'll go through the process, get approval
  • 03:27:29
    and review tentatively. Our schedule Right now is Q2
  • 03:27:33
    2025. So until we have methodology revised,
  • 03:27:38
    knowing the concern and knowing the historical performance,
  • 03:27:42
    our plan is to keep what the FDR POC
  • 03:27:45
    today continue user number we have today until we have
  • 03:27:49
    a better way to quantify the impact of a long term
  • 03:27:53
    forecast into the MDRPOC calculation and
  • 03:27:57
    certainly we'll be happy to provide a feedback and update to
  • 03:28:00
    the group as well. Thank you.
  • 03:28:05
    Okay, we have a queue. Let's start with
  • 03:28:08
    Brian Sams. Hey Fred, thanks for this
  • 03:28:12
    presentation. I have two comments the that involves slides 5
  • 03:28:15
    and 4. So on slide 5 you show the
  • 03:28:20
    increase in loads with the different forecasts
  • 03:28:24
    and this is a very real world reason
  • 03:28:28
    why we need to focus on getting NPRR1180 and
  • 03:28:31
    the corresponding, you know,
  • 03:28:36
    transparency. Right.
  • 03:28:39
    Because this will impact the ability
  • 03:28:42
    for us to plan long term outages that are needed for
  • 03:28:46
    the reliability of the system. So I just want to
  • 03:28:49
    flag that that's super important and look
  • 03:28:54
    forward to working with others really for
  • 03:28:57
    this reason but also because of that transparency provides incentives to
  • 03:29:01
    build which then also helps with creating more capacity that
  • 03:29:05
    could be available available for outage maintenance.
  • 03:29:09
    The second thing I wanted to talk about was
  • 03:29:12
    on slide four where you talk about how
  • 03:29:20
    once an outage is approved it's not withdrawn.
  • 03:29:23
    Except that the way things work with the
  • 03:29:26
    AAN and OCN process is that generators
  • 03:29:30
    do move approved outages when there's
  • 03:29:34
    a request to move them through the AAN
  • 03:29:38
    process. And we've seen a few times where folks
  • 03:29:42
    in my fleet, I'm sure this is fleet wide,
  • 03:29:46
    have moved outages and then the
  • 03:29:50
    forecast that was causing the AN just
  • 03:29:54
    doesn't materialize or maybe there's just better information
  • 03:29:58
    and the AAN itself is never cancelled.
  • 03:30:02
    And so the outage that was approved doesn't
  • 03:30:06
    happen because it got moved.
  • 03:30:09
    We would be interested in working with you guys in this subsequent
  • 03:30:13
    round to have AANS canceled when
  • 03:30:17
    there when there is no longer a need for it so that an outage that
  • 03:30:20
    was previously approved could continue.
  • 03:30:24
    What happens is we have crews that are
  • 03:30:28
    on standby and we end up paying them extra to
  • 03:30:32
    essentially sit in hotel rooms until the
  • 03:30:36
    outage that might have started on a Tuesday
  • 03:30:41
    gets past the an period and now
  • 03:30:45
    starting on a Friday. So that's just an efficiency thing and
  • 03:30:48
    I think helps with necessary maintenance.
  • 03:30:52
    And those are my comments and I happy to work with you offline ahead
  • 03:30:55
    of this kind of Q2 2025 NPRR
  • 03:30:59
    that you're talking about. Thank you. Thank you for
  • 03:31:02
    the comment. Thanks Brian. Let's go
  • 03:31:05
    to Ian. Thank you Brad. On this slide I
  • 03:31:09
    wanted to make sure I understood the thermal extended
  • 03:31:13
    planned outage. That would be if an outage
  • 03:31:16
    was supposed to end on Tuesday and it went on to Wednesday,
  • 03:31:20
    that line starts showing Volumes for Wednesday.
  • 03:31:23
    Correct. It doesn't show anything for the original planned
  • 03:31:27
    outage portion. So the
  • 03:31:31
    slideshow on here is on each day how we count the
  • 03:31:35
    outage at that time. So it's
  • 03:31:38
    a little bit details but I will try my best. So if you
  • 03:31:42
    have a plan outages scheduled from Monday to Friday.
  • 03:31:46
    Yes. And on Wednesday you realize
  • 03:31:50
    you need extra days because XYZ to
  • 03:31:54
    do a broader review and maintenance.
  • 03:31:57
    So the moment you submit your outage for the extension
  • 03:32:01
    after it will be treated as extension
  • 03:32:06
    outages. And in other case it will show a screen
  • 03:32:10
    in this. In this chart. But the days before
  • 03:32:13
    they are still remain counted as plan outages.
  • 03:32:19
    I really appreciate you documenting this. This was something
  • 03:32:23
    that when I my previous role I was very concerned about. I would think
  • 03:32:27
    in your just example there it'd be more appropriate to
  • 03:32:31
    show the volumes only for that Saturday that one day extension.
  • 03:32:36
    Not after the notification time period to get a better.
  • 03:32:40
    To give us a better view of that. And we recognize this
  • 03:32:43
    one and it just a lot of potential summit of the
  • 03:32:47
    different configuration. But we do recognize this one. This is on
  • 03:32:51
    our ongoing projects. It's going to address
  • 03:32:54
    this issue in schedule improvement hopefully next year. Great.
  • 03:32:58
    Thank you very much. And I think Brian's idea of canceling AAN is fantastic.
  • 03:33:03
    Thank you.
  • 03:33:07
    Okay, Bill Burns fred on slide
  • 03:33:11
    6. Obviously this sounds like an
  • 03:33:15
    improvement to the existing methodology.
  • 03:33:18
    I know there you received a lot of feedback and comments on how to
  • 03:33:22
    improve the existing approach. Looks like some of this is going to be
  • 03:33:25
    naturally be incorporated into the probabilistic
  • 03:33:30
    type of calculation. I'm just kind of curious how do you for
  • 03:33:35
    battery contributions which are zero today you're looking at
  • 03:33:39
    hourly average capacity factors. You know how you will calculate that.
  • 03:33:44
    So I think our current I would say
  • 03:33:48
    concept overthinking is try to align with mora's approach
  • 03:33:52
    as much as we can. Since it kind of very similar type of analysis.
  • 03:33:57
    But that application is for different purpose for each month.
  • 03:34:01
    For this one I think we can refine as we
  • 03:34:04
    need. But I think as a concept is we try to use MORA as our
  • 03:34:07
    first input and we need to refine or revise for
  • 03:34:11
    the MDRPOC to be more specific or detailed.
  • 03:34:15
    We will I'll say I would get
  • 03:34:19
    your feedback or suggestions. We can make adjustment needed.
  • 03:34:23
    So it looks like it says simulations for each monthly peak load
  • 03:34:27
    day. Oh, are you going to be adjusting the
  • 03:34:31
    MDRPOC values
  • 03:34:34
    on a monthly basis. So one of the what we thought was a really
  • 03:34:38
    big improvement because right now you the process is bifurcating the two parts
  • 03:34:42
    basically within seven days and outside of seven days.
  • 03:34:45
    And that there's releasing more outage
  • 03:34:48
    capacity within seven days doesn't do anything. It's impossible to actually schedule
  • 03:34:52
    an outage within seven days. So a month though would
  • 03:34:55
    be. So if you take most recent information for say the
  • 03:34:59
    next month and that allows you to say, okay, it looks like risk
  • 03:35:03
    is lower because of the weather pattern we're in and we've added
  • 03:35:06
    1,000 megawatts of more batteries or whatever,
  • 03:35:10
    then that would be helpful. So I just. How are you thinking about the
  • 03:35:14
    timing and cadence of calculating this and releasing
  • 03:35:17
    additional capacity? Thank you. I think I see the confusion on
  • 03:35:20
    my part. I think the slide shows similar to
  • 03:35:24
    mora, but does not mean we are going to do only monthly number.
  • 03:35:29
    We are not going to one number per month. I think what
  • 03:35:33
    we try to say here is from the, I would say algorithm
  • 03:35:38
    perspective, we try to use the kind of MORA kind of algorithm as a kind
  • 03:35:41
    of the concept here. But in terms of how granular we are
  • 03:35:44
    going to calculate MDRPOC, our plan right now is stick to what we are
  • 03:35:48
    doing right now is one number for every
  • 03:35:51
    one number per day for the next five years
  • 03:35:55
    within seven days. We really rely on the most recent available
  • 03:36:00
    forecast information to us and we
  • 03:36:03
    definitely can have a discussion. To your point. I think one of the challenge we
  • 03:36:07
    need to think through is the
  • 03:36:10
    forecast available to us for the midterm near term
  • 03:36:14
    operation horizon. We are not. We didn't have.
  • 03:36:18
    We don't have the one all the way to the month. So if we need
  • 03:36:21
    to explain that concept, we need to think through what kind
  • 03:36:25
    of input that we should have. Is it properly to replace that
  • 03:36:29
    area?
  • 03:36:37
    Okay, Ned,
  • 03:36:41
    thanks, Caitlin. Fred, can you hear me?
  • 03:36:44
    Yes. All right, well, thanks for walking through this.
  • 03:36:48
    I think I agree with a lot of the feedback you heard from
  • 03:36:51
    my colleagues that just went before. But I
  • 03:36:55
    wanted to pull the thread a little bit on the
  • 03:37:00
    nexus between slides 5 and 7.
  • 03:37:04
    And as I look at the
  • 03:37:09
    growth in slide 5 and if I'm
  • 03:37:12
    reading correctly at the top of slide 7, that this is actually including the
  • 03:37:16
    green line from slide five. Is that right?
  • 03:37:24
    Yes. Again, I want to make sure this
  • 03:37:29
    kind of a concept, the input and everything is
  • 03:37:33
    not the final. So the risk you can see,
  • 03:37:36
    I purposely don't show the risk magnitude because
  • 03:37:41
    it tried to show the relative. That's the kind of the trend,
  • 03:37:44
    but the real risk is not really finalized.
  • 03:37:49
    Okay, appreciate that.
  • 03:37:52
    So I think there's two comments I've got
  • 03:37:56
    as Feedback and also happy to work with you on this offline.
  • 03:38:00
    First one is, you know, when we were first going through the whole murder
  • 03:38:05
    pot concept, I can recall several
  • 03:38:09
    of us raising the concept of needing to have a floor for
  • 03:38:14
    the outage seasons. And I think,
  • 03:38:18
    you know, with that load growth trend
  • 03:38:23
    there is, that does seem to present likely the need
  • 03:38:27
    to revisit that to make sure that we do have some minimum outage capability
  • 03:38:32
    in the, in the outage seasons.
  • 03:38:37
    And then second comment is,
  • 03:38:41
    and this is probably more comes to the fine tuning of the probabilistic approach.
  • 03:38:45
    You know, as you're looking at that, I can see in some of the
  • 03:38:53
    tan lines or the brown lines, you see
  • 03:38:57
    a little bit more of what I'd call like a mitten shape where
  • 03:39:00
    you know you've got a high value and then it drops down and then seems
  • 03:39:03
    to shoot back up within a day or two a little bit more than under
  • 03:39:06
    the current methodology. And if it's possible to
  • 03:39:09
    add a smoothing mechanism as we're,
  • 03:39:12
    as you're evaluating the probabilistic methodology,
  • 03:39:16
    that may help with also folks that are
  • 03:39:20
    trying to schedule multiple day outages
  • 03:39:23
    that sometimes you can run into. Well, we need
  • 03:39:27
    seven days and we can get five here, but then there's a
  • 03:39:30
    gap and then we've got availability on the other side.
  • 03:39:36
    Just having some continuity there is helpful with
  • 03:39:40
    squeezing things in with I would
  • 03:39:43
    argue probably marginal reliability
  • 03:39:47
    impact. So.
  • 03:39:53
    But thank you for bringing this to us. Happy to, happy to discuss
  • 03:39:56
    further. Yeah, thank you.
  • 03:40:02
    Any other questions or comments for Fred?
  • 03:40:07
    Okay, thank you for coming here.
  • 03:40:11
    All right, we have one addition. We have
  • 03:40:15
    the large load queue which
  • 03:40:18
    we have moved from WMS to here.
  • 03:40:21
    I believe we
  • Item 12.5 - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Julie Smittman
    03:40:25
    just need to be better about having it kind of as a standing agenda
  • 03:40:28
    item back
  • 03:40:34
    to WMS.
  • 03:40:41
    Pretty faint.
  • 03:40:44
    Let's see. Let me switch my audio settings. That's much better.
  • 03:40:48
    Oh, okay. I don't know what I did, but looks like that
  • 03:40:51
    worked. All right, closer.
  • 03:40:58
    All right, everyone, my name is Julie Smittman. I'm the supervisor of the large load
  • 03:41:01
    integration team at ERCOT. So this is the usual
  • 03:41:05
    Q update that we're, you know, presenting once a month at tac.
  • 03:41:09
    You know, feel free to ask any questions after the presentation.
  • 03:41:13
    This is the standard load queue update from
  • 03:41:17
    the past 12 months. So you can see that peak of 63,000
  • 03:41:21
    mega of load projects in
  • 03:41:25
    the November 2024 queue. Those changes represent
  • 03:41:29
    new standalone and co located projects as well as several project
  • 03:41:32
    cancellations. But even with all that combined, we increased our queue capacity by
  • 03:41:36
    1050megawatts. Next slide.
  • 03:41:52
    And in this slide you can see our current queue
  • 03:41:57
    projected in service dates for these projects going up to 2028.
  • 03:42:02
    You can see our breakdown for projects. So the
  • 03:42:06
    orange block is no studies submitted. Those that are in gray are planning
  • 03:42:10
    studies approved. And those that are in purple are currently under ERCOT review.
  • 03:42:14
    Anything in that teal is approved to energize. And you
  • 03:42:17
    can see how those values are stacked going out into the future.
  • 03:42:26
    Next slide.
  • 03:42:31
    In the past 12 months, the total load with planning
  • 03:42:35
    studies that has been approved this past
  • 03:42:38
    year has seen 1,818 mega of load approved
  • 03:42:42
    to energize.
  • 03:42:50
    I'll just let everyone sit with a slide for a second before moving on.
  • 03:42:56
    All right, thanks. Next slide.
  • 03:43:02
    Of the loads that have been Approved to energize,
  • 03:43:05
    3,055 megawatts resides in load zone west and the rest
  • 03:43:08
    resides in other load zones. About 5,000 megawatts consists
  • 03:43:13
    of standalone projects and about 1,000 megawatts consists of co
  • 03:43:16
    located projects. And you can see that breakdown by project type
  • 03:43:20
    and load zone.
  • 03:43:25
    And next slide please.
  • 03:43:32
    Of the 6,297 megawatts that have received approval
  • 03:43:36
    to energize, ERCOT has observed a non simultaneous peak
  • 03:43:39
    consumption of 3,700 megawatts.
  • 03:43:43
    And this is calculated as the sum of the maximum value for each load,
  • 03:43:46
    regardless of when that max value occurs. And in the
  • 03:43:49
    next slide we'll see the coincident peak.
  • 03:43:55
    So for a simultaneous peak consumption, we've seen 2,834
  • 03:43:59
    megawatts similar to the last slide. This is just what we've seen
  • 03:44:03
    in recent real time.
  • 03:44:08
    Next slide please.
  • 03:44:14
    All right. Okay, we have a couple of questions.
  • 03:44:18
    First to Seth. Seth with vital.
  • 03:44:22
    I have a question about the proved to be energized. What are
  • 03:44:26
    we to make of that? So it's approved to be energized. And I know that
  • 03:44:29
    some of them later in your slides you show the subset that's actually
  • 03:44:32
    online with the coincident and non coincident peaks.
  • 03:44:36
    But how far along does something have to be to prove to
  • 03:44:39
    be energized? Is it just that have they
  • 03:44:42
    started construction? Is there any other thing
  • 03:44:46
    that goes along with that? Or is it just that the TSP and ERCOT
  • 03:44:50
    have given it a green light and it's possible that it lingers
  • 03:44:54
    for years beyond that point? Do you have any
  • 03:44:58
    idea on how that works or any details that you can provide?
  • 03:45:02
    Yeah, it's the latter of
  • 03:45:05
    what you just said. So this is between the TSP and ERCOT.
  • 03:45:09
    We do Try to work closely with the TSPS to ensure
  • 03:45:13
    that we're tracking things like interconnection agreements and
  • 03:45:17
    making sure at least in our internal tracking that we're highlighting that that's correct.
  • 03:45:23
    Do you know how long it normally takes something to get
  • 03:45:27
    built and online and consuming after it's been approved to be energized? Do you
  • 03:45:31
    have any. I can take that internally.
  • 03:45:34
    I don't really have numbers for you right off hand. Okay. And then
  • 03:45:38
    my other question is, I've heard some rumblings about a cap on
  • 03:45:41
    data center load at 1 gigawatt. Is that still working
  • 03:45:45
    through the ERCOT process?
  • 03:45:49
    I'm sorry, a tap on cap C
  • 03:45:53
    A P. Oh, oh, I'm sorry, a cap on the data center
  • 03:45:56
    process. I think you're referring to the thousand megawatt contingency
  • 03:46:02
    limit that is currently in the PGRR115 draft. So I'd encourage
  • 03:46:05
    you to take a look at that.
  • 03:46:09
    Okay, so that would be a contingency
  • 03:46:13
    based on it tripping and related to stability problems and
  • 03:46:17
    frequency decline problems or both, correct? Yes.
  • 03:46:21
    Thanks.
  • 03:46:24
    Okay, thank you. Okay.
  • 03:46:33
    Okay, thank you, Brian.
  • 03:46:36
    Sams. Okay, this slide here, slide, slide five.
  • 03:46:41
    We've got a few load zones and is it possible to get
  • 03:46:45
    segmentation so that all of our other load zones aren't in
  • 03:46:49
    the other bucket is the first question.
  • 03:46:52
    I can take that internally and see what we can do before the next tack.
  • 03:46:56
    Okay. Also I'm going to ask you a bunch of questions and I just
  • 03:47:00
    got to give you this preface.
  • 03:47:03
    There's just so much thirst for more information here
  • 03:47:06
    and my folks love seeing it
  • 03:47:11
    and it's almost annoying because I just
  • 03:47:14
    get more questions that I have answers to. That's how much they love
  • 03:47:17
    it. So following up
  • 03:47:21
    on Seth's question about in
  • 03:47:26
    a couple of slides down, I think it's the really the
  • 03:47:30
    load that's been observed. Just go back the last ones.
  • 03:47:34
    Five there or six. Sorry. So it
  • 03:47:38
    looks like of the load that's approved to be energized, about 60%
  • 03:47:42
    of it's ever been observed.
  • 03:47:44
    And I think like most large
  • 03:47:48
    loads provide to ERCOT their
  • 03:47:53
    expected load ramp. That's correct. And so
  • 03:47:58
    just, just having some kind of aggregated data that can tie back
  • 03:48:01
    to what's in the load forecast would be super helpful because like
  • 03:48:05
    November 24th here, like the stack
  • 03:48:09
    assumes all of this could be on but in reality,
  • 03:48:14
    you know, people build things in phases and
  • 03:48:19
    they typically provide or a load ramp and
  • 03:48:22
    so just having more information about what that
  • 03:48:26
    looks like and how that flows through to the load forecast
  • 03:48:30
    for things that are used for resource adequacy, reporting is critical
  • 03:48:34
    and so I just can't emphasize enough the thirst there
  • 03:48:38
    is for that kind of data. Thank you.
  • 03:48:41
    Sure thing.
  • 03:48:45
    Thanks Bran Ned.
  • 03:48:49
    Thanks Caitlin. And I had a similar comment to what Brian just
  • 03:48:53
    raised, which is especially with the approved
  • 03:48:58
    energized load, if recognizing that you're trying to balance all
  • 03:49:02
    the confidentiality requirements, if it was possible
  • 03:49:06
    to show what that aggregate ramp looks
  • 03:49:09
    like, particularly certainly over
  • 03:49:13
    the near term of months, but then over the
  • 03:49:17
    longer term maybe on a.
  • 03:49:20
    Well, certainly monthly would be appreciated. Understand if further
  • 03:49:24
    out you need to go to a higher level. That is what
  • 03:49:27
    it is. But that would help folks with especially
  • 03:49:32
    for instance, looking at the monthly outlook on resource
  • 03:49:36
    adequacy, we see a jump that might help to explain differences
  • 03:49:40
    between one month month and the next. So just
  • 03:49:44
    as you're, as you're taking ideas and feedback, that would be one
  • 03:49:48
    more to put in the queue. So thank you. Sure thing.
  • 03:49:53
    Go ahead, Brian. Yeah, so just like another practical application
  • 03:49:57
    here is, you know, Fred just told us that the
  • 03:50:01
    MDRPOC is taking in the low
  • 03:50:06
    into load forecast, but if it isn't ramping up over time,
  • 03:50:10
    then maybe you don't need to constrain outages as much because
  • 03:50:14
    you know that the load is ramping up over time. So just
  • 03:50:20
    ensuring that like you're not assuming
  • 03:50:23
    all 6,000 megawatts is going to be there in
  • 03:50:28
    this example, you know, could provide
  • 03:50:32
    more capacity for for outages into the future.
  • 03:50:36
    Thank you.
  • 03:50:42
    Thanks, Brian. Okay, are there
  • 03:50:45
    any other questions or comments?
  • 03:50:48
    Chess and thinking about these forecasts when we
  • 03:50:52
    get to the cdr, have you decided how much of the speculative load you
  • 03:50:56
    may or may not include in the long term forecast using the
  • 03:50:59
    cdr?
  • 03:51:06
    Yeah, that'd be a question for another team.
  • 03:51:13
    Thanks, Seth. We can call Pete. I'll write the question down.
  • 03:51:16
    Thanks. Thanks, Keith. Okay,
  • 03:51:20
    any other questions?
  • 03:51:26
    All right, thank you. Thank you for that.
  • 03:51:31
    Thanks everyone. I think I know the answer, but everybody
  • 03:51:35
    does want to keep that report here at tac. Correct.
  • 03:51:40
    And expand it. Expand it. Okay.
  • 03:51:43
    Okay. I think it needs to be standing, so maybe move it
  • 03:51:47
    up to right after subcommittee reports
  • 03:51:51
    and find a way to make it maybe more standardized.
  • Item 13 - Other Business
    03:51:57
    Okay, Any other business?
  • 03:52:06
    I have your suggestion, but I think Corey is gonna.
  • 03:52:10
    I got a suggestion from Richard Ross for when we do the combo ballots
  • 03:52:14
    that yeses say turkey and no
  • 03:52:17
    say ham.
  • 03:52:26
    Okay, well, here's. Hey Corey,
  • 03:52:29
    can you change NPRR1240 motion? Oh,
  • 03:52:33
    yep, yep. Thanks. Who's in the queue Is that Randy?
  • 03:52:37
    Yes. Thank you, Caitlin.
  • 03:52:40
    Before the holiday set in, I was feeling
  • 03:52:44
    nostalgic, and I wanted to reach out to TAC
  • 03:52:47
    members and thank them for the really
  • 03:52:51
    great work that you guys have done this year on some really
  • 03:52:55
    leviathan scale problems and challenges.
  • 03:52:59
    You guys have done a great job of keeping things
  • 03:53:03
    moving and making good decisions.
  • 03:53:06
    And to all the
  • 03:53:10
    stakeholders who have ridden
  • 03:53:13
    the express lane through my life, I wanted to wish you all
  • 03:53:17
    a warm and happy Thanksgiving to you and your
  • 03:53:20
    families and friends, and have a great one. Thank you.
  • 03:53:28
    Just go ahead, Bob. Did you.
  • 03:53:32
    Oh, no. I was going to say, we miss you, Randy. Yeah, we do miss
  • 03:53:36
    you, Randy. Yeah, of course. That's maybe one we
  • 03:53:39
    didn't have. We didn't have to argue with you all the time, so maybe that
  • 03:53:42
    changed some of the dynamics. It made you more
  • 03:53:46
    efficient, I'm sure.
  • 03:53:50
    Well, thank. Thank you so much, Randy.
  • 03:53:54
    You're welcome. All right, Corey, are you going to let us do turkey and ham?
  • 03:53:58
    I would advise against it because TAC has striven,
  • 03:54:02
    at least in the past years that I've been here, to remain protein neutral in
  • 03:54:06
    terms of holiday. So by designating ham as a no vote,
  • 03:54:10
    I think you would be setting a dangerous precedent. Okay.
  • 03:54:13
    Okay. So all. All foods are welcome at the TAC
  • 03:54:17
    Thanksgiving table. Okay. Okay. All right.
  • 03:54:22
    I will note, in addition to the typo that Ann just pointed out in
  • 03:54:26
    Bob helton's discussion about 1254 and
  • 03:54:30
    having a program appropriate Runway after approval,
  • 03:54:33
    in the discussion with Agee on the phone, they were talking about March 1st as
  • 03:54:36
    being the expected date. If we had. If we just let it fly, it would
  • 03:54:40
    have taken effect on February 1st. So modified
  • 03:54:43
    the motion so it's still the exact same language from PRS, but now
  • 03:54:46
    codifying the March 1st to bake in an extra
  • 03:54:50
    month so that 1254 won't take effect immediately.
  • 03:54:54
    Yep. Okay. Do we have a motion and a second it.
  • 03:55:02
    We don't have it yet. Blake. Blake.
  • 03:55:04
    Eric. Okay,
  • 03:55:08
    okay. I. I will remember that you wouldn't let
  • 03:55:12
    us do a silly yes or no.
  • 03:55:17
    I found his answer. Why not? Impressive,
  • 03:55:20
    though.
  • 03:55:23
    Ridiculous, but impressive.
  • 03:55:27
    I did ask him earlier so he had time to come up with it.
  • 03:55:30
    Reason. Oh, that was. That was spontaneous. But y'all have taught me you can take
  • 03:55:33
    any position you want as long as you spit out enough words about it.
  • Item 14 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith
    03:55:36
    So, hey, let's start out on the motion to prove the combo ballot.
  • 03:55:40
    He will start up with the consumers with Naba for Eric. Yes.
  • 03:55:44
    Thank you, Naba. Yes. Thank you, Garrett. Yes, sir.
  • 03:55:48
    Thank you, Eric. Schubert. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Mark Dreyfus.
  • 03:55:51
    Yes, you turkey. Thank you, Nick.
  • 03:55:54
    Yes, thank you. On to our co-ops,
  • 03:55:57
    Mike. The risk of hemming it up,
  • 03:56:00
    I just have to say I gobbled up so much information today.
  • 03:56:04
    It was really good and it's a yes. Well played,
  • 03:56:07
    sir. Blake. Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Eric Blecky.
  • 03:56:11
    Yes, thank you, John. Yes, thank you.
  • 03:56:14
    On to our independent generators, Brian. Yes, thank you,
  • 03:56:18
    Caitlin. Yes, thank you, Bob Hilton. Gobble,
  • 03:56:21
    gobble. Oh, I mean, yes.
  • 03:56:25
    Turkey slash. Yes. And I am thankful for you, Corey.
  • 03:56:29
    Thank you, Ned. Under IPMS. Rashmi.
  • 03:56:32
    Yes, thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. Yes, thanks. Thank you, Ian.
  • 03:56:35
    Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you, sir. On to our IRAPS Bill. Yes,
  • 03:56:38
    thank you, Jennifer. Yes, thank you,
  • 03:56:41
    Jay. Yes, thank you, Chris. Yes,
  • 03:56:45
    thank you. On to our IOUs. Keith.
  • 03:56:50
    Got your yes in chat. Keith. Thank you, David. Yes, thank you,
  • 03:56:53
    Colin. Yes, thank you, Richard. Yes, thanks,
  • 03:56:56
    sir. On to our munis, Russell.
  • 03:57:01
    Yes, thank you. Thank you. Jose. Yes, thank you.
  • 03:57:05
    And then David had to leave us. So he's passed his vote to Jose for
  • 03:57:08
    that one. Yes, thank you. And Alicia. So with sides.
  • 03:57:11
    Sides be abstain.
  • 03:57:14
    Sides aren't formally defined in 2.1, so just kidding.
  • 03:57:18
    You have to add those first. Thank you.
  • 03:57:24
    Here's unanimously. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Corey.
  • 03:57:27
    And thank. Thank you for listening to all of our words this year and
  • 03:57:32
    Susie and Anne too, keeping us on track. And I want
  • 03:57:36
    to reiterate what Randy said. You know, thank you, everybody for a
  • 03:57:39
    lot of good work. And it's, you know,
  • 03:57:43
    we do a lot of hard things, but I have a lot of fun working
  • 03:57:45
    with everybody here. And Keith brings the
  • 03:57:49
    fun too. Happy to help the cut in Matt's
  • 03:57:54
    presentation, though. He said this is aggressive. This is not fun. So we
  • 03:57:58
    always have fun. He's lying. Okay.
  • Item 15 - Adjourn
    03:58:03
    All right. Yes. Let's adjourn.
Agenda_tac_20241120_final
Nov 13, 2024 - doc - 125.5 KB
Agenda_tac_20241120_final_rev1
Nov 14, 2024 - doc - 126 KB
2024-tac-combined-ballot-20241120
Nov 20, 2024 - xls - 114.5 KB
4-rr-summary
Nov 13, 2024 - zip - 85.5 KB
2024-tac-waive-notice-ballot-20241120
Nov 20, 2024 - xls - 111.5 KB
5-prs-report
Nov 15, 2024 - zip - 1.1 MB
4-rr-summary
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 89.7 KB
2024-tac-nprr1247-table-ballot-(failed)-20241120
Nov 20, 2024 - xls - 112 KB
6-rrs-tabled-at-tac
Nov 13, 2024 - zip - 2 MB
2024-tac-nprr1247-ballot-20241120
Nov 20, 2024 - xls - 112 KB
2024-tac-nprr1180-pgrr107-ballot-20241120
Nov 20, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
5-prs-report
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 1.2 MB
6-rrs-tabled-at-tac
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 2 MB
Agenda_tac_20241120_final_rev2
Nov 18, 2024 - doc - 126 KB
9-wms-report
Nov 13, 2024 - zip - 493.5 KB
2a-board-stakeholder-engagement
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 83.9 KB
3-draft-minutes-tac-20241030
Nov 18, 2024 - docx - 125.5 KB
10-cfsg-report
Nov 13, 2024 - zip - 379.6 KB
4-rr-summary
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 90.7 KB
12-ercot-reports
Nov 14, 2024 - zip - 2.5 MB
12-ercot-reports
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 2.9 MB
5-prs-report
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 1.2 MB
12-ercot-reports
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 2.9 MB
6-rrs-tabled-at-tac
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 2.1 MB
8-ros-report
Nov 13, 2024 - zip - 565.8 KB
9-wms-report
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 490.5 KB
10-cfsg-report
Nov 19, 2024 - zip - 649.2 KB
11-rtcbtf-report
Nov 18, 2024 - zip - 696 KB
12-ercot-reports
Nov 20, 2024 - zip - 3.2 MB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:01:46
2 - Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:06:04
2.1 - ERCOT Board/Stakeholder Engagement Update - Rebecca Zerwas/Ann Boren
Starts at 00:06:07
3 - Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes - Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 00:23:41
3.1 - October 30, 2024
Starts at 00:23:51
4 - Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/ Opinions - Ann Boren/IMM
Starts at 00:24:18
5 - PRS Report Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:29:22
5.5 - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data - Waive Notice
Starts at 00:33:03
5.1 - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information - Waive Notice
Starts at 00:33:22
5.2 - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information (Waive Notice
Starts at 00:33:29
5.3 - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era Waive Notice
Starts at 00:36:28
5.4 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects – URGENT - Waive Notice
Starts at 00:36:54
6 - Revision Requests Tabled at TAC - Possible Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 01:24:45
6.1 - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
Starts at 01:24:48
6.2 - NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs
Starts at 01:48:45
6.3 - NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
Starts at 01:58:08
6.4 - NOGRR266, Related to NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
Starts at 01:58:17
6.5 - NOGRR267, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
Starts at 01:58:51
6.7 - PGRR116, Related to NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
Starts at 01:58:57
6.6 - OBDRR052, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
Starts at 01:59:06
11 - RTC+B Task Force Report - Matt Mereness
Starts at 02:00:33
7 - RMS Report - Debbie McKeever
Starts at 02:26:42
8 - ROS Report - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 02:28:58
8.1 - PGRR107, Related to NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
Starts at 02:29:06
8.2 - PGRR118, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
Starts at 02:29:09
8.3 - NOGRR268, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
Starts at 02:29:16
9 - WMS Report - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:32:13
10 - Credit Finance Sub Group Report - Vote - Brenden Sager
Starts at 02:36:14
10.1 - Approval of CFSG Membership
Starts at 02:46:42
12 - ERCOT Reports
Starts at 02:48:39
12.1 - Segment Membership Discussion - Katherine Gross
Starts at 02:48:54
12.2 - Price Correction -Nov. 1, 2024 - Incomplete Weekly Database Load - Gordon Drake
Starts at 03:08:10
12.3 - Oncor Delaware Basin Stages 3 and 4 RPG Project – EIR Possible Vote - Prabhu Gnanam
Starts at 03:11:58
12.4 - MDRPOC Update and Outage Performance Review - Fred Huang
Starts at 03:17:34
12.5* - Large Load Interconnection Status Update - Julie Smittman
Starts at 03:40:25
13 - Other Business
Starts at 03:51:57
14 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Caitlin Smith
Starts at 03:55:36
15 - Adjourn
Starts at 03:58:03

Help Desk