05/09/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 2:52:03
Duration 3:09:10
Loaded: 90.96%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 17:07
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:05
    Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT. We're
  • 00:00:07
    gonna go ahead and get started today. If we can get
  • 00:00:09
    everybody in the room to take their seats
  • 00:00:13
    and uh while they're getting their seats, I'm just
  • 00:00:15
    gonna go ahead real quick with the meeting room reminders
  • 00:00:18
    If you're in here today, you can either enter yourself
  • 00:00:21
    in the chat for motion or discussion or you can hold
  • 00:00:24
    up your card and Jordan's in the right hand corner
  • 00:00:27
    over here and he will actually add you in. Um Obviously
  • 00:00:32
    those on the WebEx will be adding yourself in, but
  • 00:00:34
    I just would ask that you would wait for the chair
  • 00:00:37
    to recognize you before you begin speaking. Also looking
  • 00:00:40
    for everybody that's here today to make sure you sign
  • 00:00:43
    in at the sign in sheet outside the meeting room door
  • 00:00:46
    And if the WebEx ends for any reason, just give us
  • 00:00:49
    a few minutes and we shall restart the WebEx. You can
  • 00:00:52
    log back in with the same meeting details or we will
  • 00:00:55
    send something to the PRS list serve. And with that
  • 00:00:58
    Diana, we're ready to go and we do have a quorum for
  • 00:01:00
    today.
  • 00:01:02
    Thank you, Susie Good morning, everybody.
  • 00:01:06
    Welcome to the May PRS meeting to get started. We
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman
    00:01:10
    will start with our antitrust to avoid raising concerns
  • 00:01:13
    about antitrust liability. Participants in ot activities
  • 00:01:17
    should refrain from proposing any action or measure
  • 00:01:20
    that would exceed A's authority under federal or state
  • 00:01:23
    law. For additional information, stakeholders should
  • 00:01:26
    consult the statement of position that is located on
  • 00:01:28
    the website and also presentations and material submitted
  • 00:01:33
    by market participants or any other entity to ERCOT
  • 00:01:36
    staff for this meeting are received and posted with
  • 00:01:38
    acknowledgment that the information will be considered
  • 00:01:40
    public in accordance with the ERCOT website's content
  • 00:01:43
    management operating procedure. Ok. With all of that
  • Item 2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman
    00:01:49
    out of the way, Let's go ahead and we'll go to section
  • Item 2.1 - April 5, 2024
    00:01:53
    two. What is the approval of the meeting minutes from
  • 00:01:57
    April 5th? I don't believe we had any edits or revisions
  • 00:02:02
    to the meeting minutes. Is that correct? Ok. So we
  • 00:02:06
    can include those on our combo ballot at the end of
  • 00:02:10
    the agenda unless anybody has any thoughts or comments
  • 00:02:13
    or anything to add.
  • 00:02:16
    Ok. Not seeing anything. So we can go ahead and plan
  • 00:02:19
    on approving those as presented on the combo ballot
  • 00:02:22
    later in the meeting
  • 00:02:25
    under item three for the TAC update TAC met on April
  • Item 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
    00:02:30
    15th, there was one NPRR that we sent to them
  • 00:02:34
    for their review and approval, which was 1212 clarification
  • 00:02:38
    of distribution service providers obligation to provide
  • 00:02:41
    an ESI ID
  • 00:02:44
    and uh TAC did approve this. Um and they also approved
  • 00:02:49
    our 2024 PRS goals and then just one item to note
  • 00:02:54
    TAC did approve 1212 and also the companion PGRR114
  • 00:02:57
    Any comments on anything from the TAC update?
  • 00:03:06
    Ok. All right. So we that will take us to item four
  • 00:03:12
    which is the project update from Troy. Go ahead, Troy
  • 00:03:15
    Ok, good morning. Thank you, Diana. This is Troy Anderson
  • 00:03:19
    with ERCOT Portfolio management with my project update
  • 00:03:23
    and the continued discussion on aging revision requests
  • Item 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
    00:03:28
    so we can jump to slide three. Thanks, Corey. Ok. So
  • 00:03:32
    April uh we had some things go live on the first as
  • 00:03:36
    you see here. I think we talked about those last month
  • 00:03:38
    so I'll not go into those in detail. Um June 1st, there's
  • 00:03:45
    a new securitization report that will be posted. So
  • 00:03:48
    there are market notices out there if you're interested
  • 00:03:51
    in that and then the June release now has last month
  • 00:03:58
    I was reporting that all these were going live on June
  • 00:04:01
    13th. So there was a request for a couple more weeks
  • 00:04:05
    of testing for market participants on 1186. So we backed
  • 00:04:10
    the release back to the normal window of, of June 27th
  • 00:04:14
    So you see those are all there. Now, with the exception
  • 00:04:19
    of 819 and 1111, those are actually going live on the
  • 00:04:26
    30th in R5, I've learned late yesterday. So there's
  • 00:04:30
    a market notice going out about SCR819 that it goes
  • 00:04:34
    live at the end of this month. May 30th the other six
  • 00:04:41
    items in that at the start of that June list, there
  • 00:04:44
    are all our six targets. Let's see, I'm getting a chat
  • 00:04:49
    from someone in case I'm missing something. No, I think
  • 00:04:51
    we're ok. So that's what's going on there. A two week
  • 00:04:54
    delay on 1186 and the others that were being bundled
  • 00:04:58
    with it, ok.
  • 00:05:03
    Under the matrix, you'll basically see the same story
  • 00:05:07
    uh with the 819 exception of it going to May, we also
  • 00:05:14
    have some other changes you'll see in red forecast
  • 00:05:17
    presentation platform, the more external facing components
  • 00:05:22
    are gonna now be in R8 in August. There are things
  • 00:05:25
    going live in May. In fact, there's continued releases
  • 00:05:28
    in that project, but I'm trying to keep an eye on what
  • 00:05:31
    is really external facing to report in this report
  • 00:05:37
    1131 I've been targeting it for July. That's the CLRs
  • 00:05:42
    in Non-Spin. Uh that July target was based on the thought
  • 00:05:47
    that if we could get this effort going, you know, in
  • 00:05:51
    like late Q one, we could probably hit that July target
  • 00:05:54
    but we didn't get the project started till last week
  • 00:05:56
    So we're pushing it to September for now. It's in initiation
  • 00:06:01
    as you see and we will fine tune that as we get
  • 00:06:05
    further into planning
  • 00:06:08
    something else, I'll be talking about when we get to
  • 00:06:10
    the aging revision request. We're gonna try to pair
  • 00:06:13
    1058 resource offer modernization with 1131. We're
  • 00:06:19
    hoping that September date will work for those two
  • 00:06:22
    combined. Uh The reason on 1058 is of course, we've
  • 00:06:27
    heard here, there's a lot of interest in that, but
  • 00:06:29
    also, as we were reviewing it with the RTC team, there
  • 00:06:34
    was a realization that RTC benefits from having 1058
  • 00:06:38
    done in advance. So that uh was a driving factor in
  • 00:06:44
    trying to pair those two up
  • 00:06:48
    also in red in the far lower, right? NPRR1023
  • 00:06:53
    Uh it's the uh the latest CRR project we're declaring
  • 00:06:58
    the go live target TBD. Now, as most of, you know,
  • 00:07:01
    we've been wrestling with some performance issues with
  • 00:07:05
    the CRR engine and that has taken at least a couple
  • 00:07:11
    of months out of the out of the plan for that we
  • 00:07:14
    expected to be on for that December release. So we're
  • 00:07:17
    not sure when it'll be. So we're gonna call it TBD
  • 00:07:20
    for the moment and each month, I'll give you updates
  • 00:07:23
    if there's any new news.
  • 00:07:28
    So that's the latest uh
  • 00:07:31
    playing here for 2024.
  • 00:07:35
    Let's move on. We can know he's double back. Ok. This
  • 00:07:39
    slide hasn't changed, but I can report that for those
  • 00:07:43
    interested in the MPIM Effort, the redesign approach
  • 00:07:48
    that gray box at the bottom kind of in the middle that
  • 00:07:51
    kicked off. I think it was this week. So we're a little
  • 00:07:55
    ahead of schedule on getting that going based on this
  • 00:07:57
    graphic. So that's good news there.
  • Item 4.1 - Review of Aging Projects
    00:08:02
    Slide six. This is really all about aging items. So
  • 00:08:06
    we'll talk about that on slides 11 through 19. So stand
  • 00:08:11
    by there
  • 00:08:14
    Slide seven. We have one item today with the project
  • 00:08:18
    connected to at 1198. Another one that's onm so it
  • 00:08:22
    does not need priority in rank. We'll talk about that
  • 00:08:26
    agenda item six.
  • 00:08:30
    Uh Next TEG meeting is on May 29th. So they're still
  • 00:08:34
    working on the agenda so you can keep your eye out
  • 00:08:36
    for that
  • 00:08:39
    and back to aging revision requests. So let's go ahead
  • 00:08:44
    and jump to slide. 10 Corey.
  • 00:08:48
    So what I've done here is tried to produce a bit of
  • 00:08:52
    a checker board so we can track where we are. So when
  • 00:08:55
    we talked about this in March and I rolled out the
  • 00:08:58
    six categories that we were proposing to use for tracking
  • 00:09:03
    we had 66 items that were uh board, commission approved
  • 00:09:09
    but not started or on hold 66. And they played out
  • 00:09:14
    that way with a big chunk in that market input needed
  • 00:09:17
    at the bottom. Well, where we are today and you notice
  • 00:09:20
    I didn't post a spreadsheet this time, but I have all
  • 00:09:23
    of these items in the slides that are coming up. So
  • 00:09:26
    if anyone really wants that spreadsheet, I can post
  • 00:09:29
    it. But all the same information largely is in the
  • 00:09:33
    coming slides. So here in May, we're down to 62 and
  • 00:09:39
    the re the driver there is the text to the left. Um
  • 00:09:43
    1131 started, that's the CLRs and Non-Spin that project
  • 00:09:49
    is underway. Um 1139 started, that's the adjustments
  • 00:09:54
    to capacity shortfall ratio share for RRs. So the
  • 00:09:57
    fact that they're in flight, they no longer meet the
  • 00:10:00
    criteria for th for this uh collection. So that's two
  • 00:10:04
    And then RMGRR168 that uh I discovered after I
  • 00:10:10
    reported uh uh last month that the work is essentially
  • 00:10:14
    been done in O&M and it's just gonna be tested
  • 00:10:17
    with Texas Set. So it really isn't a project on its
  • 00:10:20
    own, doesn't need to be and doesn't need to be tracked
  • 00:10:23
    So, um I've, I've canceled it as a stand alone project
  • 00:10:28
    which takes it out of account, but it's still part
  • 00:10:31
    of the Texas SET release. No, no worries there. And
  • 00:10:35
    then PGRR066 the RIOO team has been working on the
  • 00:10:39
    backlog of RIOO revision requests and that one, they
  • 00:10:43
    they reported it's actually been implemented already
  • 00:10:45
    So it doesn't, similarly, it does not need a stand
  • 00:10:49
    alone project and I've canceled that, but it is already
  • 00:10:53
    implemented, confirmed that with market rules, that
  • 00:10:56
    one's good to go. So those four dropped out, taking
  • 00:10:59
    us to 62. Um The big change you see is the market
  • 00:11:04
    input item the group six dropped from 28 to 14, several
  • 00:11:09
    a couple of those moved to proceed as planned. Some
  • 00:11:12
    of them moved to post RTC. We'll talk about that in
  • 00:11:14
    a second. I think our goal though is to get that number
  • 00:11:18
    down to zero or as close to zero as we can. So
  • 00:11:22
    that's what I've been working on and uh you'll see
  • 00:11:26
    some of the results of the effort we've been undertaking
  • 00:11:30
    over these last few months here in a second. Ok. Let's
  • 00:11:34
    go into the detail and I'll talk about the things,
  • 00:11:37
    the new recommendations out of these 62. So there we
  • 00:11:42
    go. Thanks Corey. So start for starters SCR821 that's
  • 00:11:47
    the voltage setpoint, target information for DGRs
  • 00:11:49
    or DESR. Notice the budget very small. It's only
  • 00:11:53
    EMS. So we dug into that. And I know last time I
  • 00:11:58
    think I talked about making it post RTC. But as the
  • 00:12:04
    team looked at it, you know, with our systems, we do
  • 00:12:07
    have O&M changes that go on, you know, dealing
  • 00:12:11
    with noncritical bugs and other things like that. So
  • 00:12:14
    we can fit in very small single system changes into
  • 00:12:18
    that process. So uh the GMS team that's grid
  • 00:12:23
    and market solutions. They suggested we just handle
  • 00:12:25
    this as one of those O&M type items. So
  • 00:12:29
    they're gonna work that into the plan. I believe I
  • 00:12:32
    had it on slide.
  • 00:12:36
    No, I don't have. Yes, I have it on the slide four
  • 00:12:39
    in August. I forgot to point that out. SCR821 is targeted
  • 00:12:44
    for August now as one of these onm changes. So we think
  • 00:12:47
    we can just get it done. We don't have to put, push
  • 00:12:49
    it to post RTC and it's not an issue, another revised
  • 00:12:54
    recommendation. 1145. Um We believe we need to get
  • 00:12:58
    that one in motion too, but the resources aren't very
  • 00:13:01
    clear until later this year. So that's why you see
  • 00:13:03
    a Q3 target on the start. But we're suggesting
  • 00:13:06
    that we should roll with that one later this year.
  • 00:13:10
    So those two move from the category six to the category
  • 00:13:13
    one
  • 00:13:16
    slide 12, no change, 13, no change, I don't believe
  • 00:13:22
    same with 14,
  • 00:13:25
    same with 15, we double back if anybody needs to, I'm
  • 00:13:30
    gonna try to cover the changes here. First slide 16
  • 00:13:34
    here's where there's some news. So um a lot of you
  • 00:13:38
    have expressed interest in 1171 and its partner 1213
  • 00:13:43
    So this was our main focus over the last month with
  • 00:13:47
    figuring out if there are any options there. Um We're
  • 00:13:51
    suggesting there are um 11 combined. Now we understand
  • 00:13:57
    that if we merge them together, I've said there's some
  • 00:13:59
    efficiencies. So keep that in mind and we did keep
  • 00:14:02
    that in mind, there's 1100 hours of vendor work on
  • 00:14:05
    those combined. So, you know, if that drops to 900
  • 00:14:09
    that's still material. It's 1800 hours of GMS work
  • 00:14:13
    on those too. So, you know, if that gets carved back
  • 00:14:16
    to 14, 15 it's just too significant to try to introduce
  • 00:14:20
    him to the plan without disrupting RTC. And, and part
  • 00:14:24
    of that story is that the RTC team is doing their
  • 00:14:27
    best to come up with a go live date that is as
  • 00:14:31
    early in the window as they can achieve. So, uh that's
  • 00:14:36
    part of the focus too that we're really trying to not
  • 00:14:39
    have RTC extend, you know, deep into, you know, late
  • 00:14:44
    2026. We want, we try, we'd really like to get that
  • 00:14:48
    deployed earlier than that. So things like this would
  • 00:14:51
    really disrupt that. So we're suggesting they need
  • 00:14:54
    to be post RTC
  • 00:14:57
    and the story is similar with 1091 you know, after
  • 00:15:00
    we finished the 1171 discussion, we looked at it. It
  • 00:15:03
    has now it's admittedly a lot smaller. It's 300 hours
  • 00:15:07
    of GMS and 160 hours of vendor. But our
  • 00:15:11
    thought is it, it, it's, it's the same story just had
  • 00:15:15
    A lesser degree of impact. So we, we're suggesting
  • 00:15:20
    we should make that post RTC as well.
  • 00:15:26
    Now, the next slide, there are still some other, the
  • 00:15:30
    yellow highlights or the six that PRS said we should
  • 00:15:33
    look at. So 1006, we're still looking at as
  • 00:15:39
    well. And I was, I've been doing a little bit of uh
  • 00:15:42
    free research. It has 500 hours of GMS and 100 and
  • 00:15:47
    40 hours of vendors. So it's similar to 1091 and, but
  • 00:15:51
    we're looking at it and I understand there's different
  • 00:15:53
    pieces of it that uh may or may not be as critical
  • 00:15:57
    as others. So we're, we're digging into that and I
  • 00:15:59
    hopefully can bring more information on that next month
  • 00:16:05
    And then on the next slide, the two other yellows there's
  • 00:16:07
    resource offer modernization which I put in green.
  • 00:16:11
    We're trying to pair with 1131. And by the way, we
  • 00:16:14
    took another look at the I A on that and, and we've
  • 00:16:17
    carved back, it had about 250 hours of G MS and zero
  • 00:16:22
    hours of vendor. Um Our, our experts me there on the
  • 00:16:28
    estimation took a look and he's thinking maybe it's
  • 00:16:31
    more like 100 and 80 to 200 hours. So um it's, it's
  • 00:16:35
    not as bad as it could otherwise be. And then 1128
  • 00:16:41
    I'd say along with 1006, that's next on my list to
  • 00:16:45
    evaluate and try to figure out. So, did you want to
  • 00:16:50
    take some questions now or did you want to get through
  • 00:16:52
    the process now? Is a good time. I think I've concluded
  • 00:16:54
    with the summary of, of the changes, Kevin.
  • 00:17:01
    Oh, Martha, sorry. That's ok. Thanks Martha Hanson
  • 00:17:04
    with Oncor um, Troy back to 1171 and 1213. You said
  • 00:17:10
    those are gonna be post RTC. What, what's kind of
  • 00:17:12
    the best guess of the year there at this point that
  • 00:17:17
    those would start, I think where I've penciled them
  • 00:17:20
    in would be to start.
  • 00:17:24
    In fact, if we go to,
  • 00:17:29
    sorry here working out. Ok. Uh Slide 22.
  • 00:17:36
    Uh the, my, the last right there. Yep. The top two
  • 00:17:40
    on this is the draft gant. So, you know, right now
  • 00:17:46
    they're starting in mid 27 going live in mid 28. Um
  • 00:17:52
    That's very dependent on when RTC would go live and
  • 00:17:56
    things like that. If uh if, if folks agree that it
  • 00:18:01
    needs to be a top priority post RTC, then you know
  • 00:18:04
    that could accelerate by, you know, as much as a year
  • 00:18:07
    So that's kind of what we're looking at. Ok. Thank
  • 00:18:09
    you. No concerns with this. I was just curious what
  • 00:18:12
    year you were target? Thank you, Katie.
  • 00:18:17
    Thanks Diana. Thanks Troy. Um It will be no surprise
  • 00:18:21
    that I am the 1006 cheerleader today. So I wanted to
  • 00:18:24
    make a couple of points about that. So uh I don't know
  • 00:18:27
    if we need to go back to slide 17,
  • 00:18:30
    but I think 1006 is gonna be more important before
  • 00:18:33
    RTC+B. Given that load growth is looking like
  • 00:18:37
    it is exceeding gen growth and therefore there's going
  • 00:18:39
    to be a higher probability of le on um market interventions
  • 00:18:44
    So the other point I would like to note is that folks
  • 00:18:48
    know about the ERCOT DR RFP and the MRA that's gonna be
  • 00:18:52
    coming out next year. And I feel like those types of
  • 00:18:55
    action should also be included in 1006. So I want to
  • 00:18:58
    flag that for everyone and then I appreciate what you
  • 00:19:02
    said about 1058 and trying to get that out before RTC,
  • 00:19:04
    I would definitely group these two together um because
  • 00:19:08
    they address current system needs that affect a broader
  • 00:19:10
    broader spectrum of market participants. So they have
  • 00:19:14
    a more utilitarian perspective to them. So I would
  • 00:19:17
    appreciate you continuing to look at 1006 as you mentioned
  • 00:19:22
    Thank you, Katie
  • 00:19:25
    Andy. Yeah, thanks Diana. And I wanted to echo Haiti's
  • 00:19:30
    comments. It's not just the um inputs to the actual
  • 00:19:35
    data here. It's I think we becot probably would benefit
  • 00:19:38
    from a mechanism or functionality that allows them
  • 00:19:42
    to capture out of market actions like the RFP and other
  • 00:19:47
    potential out of market actions that are needed given
  • 00:19:49
    kind of the reliability concerns. And um so you know
  • 00:19:55
    1006 is important in that aspect. So the sooner we
  • 00:19:58
    can get that functionality, I think the the better
  • 00:20:00
    we can get the price signals to align with kind of
  • 00:20:03
    the auto market interventions. So appreciate that Troy
  • 00:20:09
    I can add to the 1006 comments I've kind of alerted
  • 00:20:13
    some of our SMEs to listen in to the comments here
  • 00:20:16
    so to make sure they're understanding your points as
  • 00:20:20
    we go through the analysis. So, thank you.
  • 00:20:27
    All right, Troy. And we had another comment um supporting
  • 00:20:30
    a higher priority for a th 1006 in the chat as well
  • 00:20:34
    but we have a clear queue. Ok.
  • 00:20:38
    Um I, I guess in summary, I wanted to, you know, give
  • 00:20:44
    the status and where we are the, the six yellow items
  • 00:20:48
    we've, you know, made some deter some recommendations
  • 00:20:51
    and others were still working on. Um I can also say
  • 00:20:55
    that out of that group six, there's still several Rio
  • 00:21:01
    things that the Rio teams looking at. So if we can
  • 00:21:04
    get those targeted for, you know, some, some uh implementation
  • 00:21:09
    timelines, they can leave that group six. I still have
  • 00:21:12
    to put together the reporting bundle and that'll take
  • 00:21:15
    several out of here as well. And along with uh I was
  • 00:21:20
    notified that PGRR103, we actually uh implemented manually
  • 00:21:25
    upfront. And so that item is really just a uh an automation
  • 00:21:30
    project. So I'll be moving that to the no action needed
  • 00:21:35
    category. So we'll continue to work through these um
  • 00:21:40
    and give updates. And I've, I've now asked Diana to
  • 00:21:43
    let me know when you think we're gonna, we're ready
  • 00:21:46
    to take some information forward to TAC. So I'll be
  • 00:21:49
    happy to support that when the time is right.
  • 00:21:53
    Thank you, Troy. I think we're looks like we're making
  • 00:21:56
    a lot of progress. I mean, going from 66 to 62 doesn't
  • 00:21:59
    sound like a big deal until you see all of the effort
  • 00:22:03
    that it's required behind the scenes. So we appreciate
  • 00:22:06
    that this is very informative and we'll uh take the
  • 00:22:09
    feedback on um the previous one and we'll see where
  • 00:22:13
    we can come up with. Ok. Ok. That's it for me then
  • 00:22:16
    Thank you. Thank you.
  • Item 5 - Urgency Vote - Vote - Diana Coleman
    00:22:22
    Ok. So that takes us to section five. There are um
  • 00:22:29
    three voting items here that we have urgency requests
  • 00:22:33
    attached to them and then two of these items, we have
  • 00:22:36
    a wave notice that would need to be um voted on before
  • Item 5.1 - NPRR1228, Continued One-Winter Procurements for Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS
    00:22:42
    the urgency. So 1228 we would need an urgency vote
  • 00:22:48
    before we could talk about the language. 1229 was posted
  • 00:22:52
    on May 6th and 1230 was posted on May 7th. So for
  • 00:22:56
    those two items, we would need to first wave notice
  • 00:22:59
    and then urgency and then we could take up the language
  • 00:23:02
    I'll tee this up. We can do this a couple of different
  • 00:23:05
    ways depending on how you guys would like to see this
  • 00:23:07
    done. We can take them up individually. Um If there
  • 00:23:12
    is no um heartburn about waving notice and creating
  • 00:23:16
    urgency, uh we can do like a mini combo ballot and
  • 00:23:20
    we can do all three in one fell swoop or if we
  • 00:23:24
    would rather do them individually, we can do it that
  • 00:23:27
    way too. So y'all let me know um what we think Katie
  • 00:23:34
    sorry Mike issues. Um Can we take a separate urgency
  • 00:23:38
    vote on 1229 please? Ok.
  • 00:23:43
    All right. So let's go ahead and just do them individually
  • 00:23:46
    that way. I think it might be just a little bit easier
  • 00:23:48
    So let's start, let's start with 1228. Um This is coming
  • 00:23:55
    to us from ERCOT. It is decreasing the number of firm
  • 00:23:59
    fuel uh supply service obligation periods that are
  • 00:24:02
    awarded and uh procurement period from 2 to 1. Um This
  • 00:24:09
    was posted in time so we don't have to do wave notice
  • 00:24:12
    Um ERCOT, would you like to tee this one up for us
  • 00:24:16
    and give us an overview.
  • 00:24:18
    Hi Diana, this is DaVita with ERCOT. Can you confirm
  • 00:24:22
    that you can hear me, please? Loud and clear, DaVita
  • 00:24:25
    Oh, great. Thank you. Well, thank you all so much for
  • 00:24:28
    considering our urgency request. Um We have requested
  • 00:24:32
    urgency so that um this um NPRR if it receives
  • 00:24:37
    support would be able to be put in place and effective
  • 00:24:41
    before the August 1 deadline that ERCOT has to issue
  • 00:24:45
    our RFP for next winter's firm fuel supply service obligation
  • 00:24:50
    period. At the April 25th open meeting. The PUC gave
  • 00:24:56
    us guidance in response to a question that staff had
  • 00:24:59
    posed regarding um the the number of winters that should
  • 00:25:04
    be included in an RFP for foreign fuel supply service
  • 00:25:08
    And they confirmed that they'd like us to continue
  • 00:25:10
    our current practice of um procuring for one winter
  • 00:25:14
    at a time. And so this NPRR would put in
  • 00:25:17
    place that guidance.
  • 00:25:22
    Thank you, Davida.
  • 00:25:24
    Do we have any questions? Ok.
  • 00:25:29
    So what is the role of the group? We can um
  • 00:25:34
    grant urgency on this and we can add that to the combo
  • 00:25:38
    ballot or um if there's any I?
  • 00:25:53
    Ok. So Ian, who does not have a mic, I'll try to
  • 00:25:56
    capture what he said, uh a combo ballot or a combo
  • 00:25:59
    item for both urgency. Um And a motion is that right
  • 00:26:05
    For 1228 for both? Ok. Ok. So we have a motion by
  • 00:26:11
    I do we have a 2nd 2nd by Martha.
  • 00:26:16
    Any thoughts, any comments?
  • 00:26:19
    Ok. Corey, I think we're ready on 1228. All right.
  • 00:26:23
    Thank you, Ian. Thank you, Martha. Um So the motion
  • 00:26:27
    is to both grant it urgent and recommend approval of
  • 00:26:30
    it as submitted and afford it on TAC with the 52 I
  • 00:26:33
    A which as you can imagine is no impact.
  • 00:26:37
    And for this, we will start up with consumers with
  • 00:26:40
    Eric
  • 00:26:47
    and Eric. How about Nabaraj? Yes. Thank you, Mark. Thank
  • 00:26:54
    you, Ryan. Yes. Thank you on to our co ops Lucas. Yes
  • 00:27:00
    Thank you Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank you
  • 00:27:05
    on our independent generators. Andy. Yes. Thank you
  • 00:27:09
    Caitlin
  • 00:27:17
    Caitlin Smith with us.
  • 00:27:21
    How about Katie. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Bryan.
  • 00:27:27
    Yes, I got you in the chat, Caitlin. Thank you.
  • 00:27:31
    And then Bryan.
  • 00:27:34
    Yes. Thank you, Carrie. Yes. Thank you, Bob Helton
  • 00:27:40
    Yes, sir. Thanks, sir, Alex.
  • 00:27:44
    Thank you and David,
  • 00:27:51
    they will David Mindham me with us.
  • 00:28:09
    Ok. On to our IPMs John. Yes. Thank you, Resmi
  • 00:28:20
    for me,
  • 00:28:27
    Ian. Thank you, Kevin. Yes, thank you. Yeah, on to
  • 00:28:32
    our ire still. Yes. Thank you, Erin.
  • 00:28:38
    Yes, thank you under IOUs Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark
  • 00:28:44
    Spencer.
  • 00:28:50
    Not seeing Mark with us.
  • 00:28:53
    How about Jim? Yes, thanks, Corey. Thank you and Munis
  • 00:28:58
    Diana. Yes. Thank you, Ashley. Yes. Thank you and Fei
  • 00:29:06
    Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:29:09
    Motion carries unanimously. Thank you.
  • 00:29:13
    Hey, core it, it's Jim over here just curious um in
  • 00:29:18
    IOU section, sector, line back, line back of power
  • 00:29:23
    Are they an IOU?
  • 00:29:27
    I'm sorry, what's the question questioning why linebacker
  • 00:29:30
    power the IOUs if you'd like to walk through all that
  • 00:29:33
    part of the affiliate with cross Texas and that's in
  • 00:29:36
    the IOU segment and they're junk members, both uh linebacker
  • 00:29:40
    power. So it is a IOU segment speaking. Ok. Help and
  • 00:29:48
    keep it
  • 00:29:51
    good question.
  • 00:29:54
    Ok. Thank you, Corey.
  • 00:29:58
    Ok. So that takes us to 1229. We will need a wave
  • 00:30:03
    notice for uh we'll do this one individually. We have
  • 00:30:07
    a comment on 1230. So let's take up 1229 by itself
  • 00:30:11
    We'll need a uh wave notice first. Um and then we can
  • 00:30:17
    take up the urgency status and then we can look into
  • 00:30:19
    the language.
  • 00:30:22
    Mm.
  • 00:30:25
    Ok. We got Lucas.
  • Item 5.2 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - Waive Notice – Possible Vote
    00:30:29
    Sure. I guess it's uh a little bit of direction
  • 00:30:32
    how we, how we go with this on the, on the wave
  • 00:30:34
    notice but um, just speak to the NPRR uh to
  • 00:30:39
    get you all on board. Has anybody read it, I guess
  • 00:30:41
    or we just need to jump into uh figuring out if y'all
  • 00:30:47
    are ready to take it up. Well, I think before we start
  • 00:30:50
    that Corey, correct me if I'm wrong, I think for first
  • 00:30:53
    we need to do the wave notice and then we need to
  • 00:30:55
    do the urgency and then we can tee it up with an
  • 00:30:56
    overview. Is that correct? Yeah. If we're gonna follow
  • 00:30:59
    the letter, we should first wave notice as soon as
  • 00:31:01
    we waive notice, then Lucas can jump up on the soap
  • 00:31:05
    box to explain why it should also be granted urgent
  • 00:31:07
    status. But this will just be the, do you wanna talk
  • 00:31:09
    about it at all today or do you wanna wait till June
  • 00:31:12
    Ok. So it sounds like Lucas was making a motion to
  • 00:31:15
    wa of notice and did we get a second?
  • 00:31:19
    I would make a motion to waive notice? Ok. So we have
  • 00:31:21
    a mo motion by Lucas to waive notice. Do we have a
  • 00:31:23
    second,
  • 00:31:26
    Bob? We have a second by Bob.
  • 00:31:29
    OK.
  • 00:31:32
    Do we have any other thoughts or discussion? Ok. So
  • 00:31:37
    Corey's got us teed up for wave notice on 1229. Yup
  • 00:31:41
    So waving notice requires a two thirds vote to pass
  • 00:31:44
    So this keeps it cleaner to make sure we get this one
  • 00:31:47
    taken care of first. So we will start up again with
  • 00:31:49
    consumers with Eric again. No. Ok. Thank you number
  • 00:31:57
    Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Uh Mark. Thank you Ryan. No
  • 00:32:05
    thank you on to our CoOps Lucas. Yes. Thank you, Blake
  • 00:32:10
    Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes, thank. Thank you on to our
  • 00:32:14
    independent generators. Andy. Yes. Thank you. Thank
  • 00:32:17
    you, Caitlin.
  • 00:32:20
    Yes. Thank you, Katie. Yes. Thank you, Brian.
  • 00:32:27
    Thank you, Carrie Abstain.
  • 00:32:31
    Thank you,
  • 00:32:34
    Bob Hilton. Yes, sir. I think sir, Alex abstain, abstain
  • 00:32:41
    Gotch you. Thank you
  • 00:32:43
    and David
  • 00:32:48
    send David with us
  • 00:32:54
    on IPMs John Abstain.
  • 00:32:58
    Thank you, Resmi.
  • 00:33:07
    I
  • 00:33:09
    got you. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, on
  • 00:33:13
    our IREPs bill.
  • 00:33:16
    Yes. Thank you, Erin. Yes. Thank you on IOUs,
  • 00:33:23
    Martha. Yes. Thank you, Marks Spencer with the ship
  • 00:33:32
    not seeing him, Jim. Yes, thanks, Corey. Thank you
  • 00:33:37
    on to our Munis Diana. Abstein. Thank you, Ashley. Abstein
  • 00:33:45
    Q and Faith. Yes, thank you.
  • 00:33:51
    Ok. Motion carries 85% in favor 14 and some change
  • 00:33:56
    against and five abstentions. So now you've waive notice
  • 00:34:00
    now you can discuss it. Next thing to discuss would
  • 00:34:02
    be whether or not to grant urgent status or not. So
  • 00:34:04
    I, I think it's appropriate for Lucas to make his sales
  • 00:34:08
    pitch. Now. So Lucas go ahead and give us an overview
  • 00:34:11
    and then just then, then reason for urgency. That would
  • 00:34:14
    be great.
  • 00:34:17
    All righty. So uh apologies for the, the late filing
  • 00:34:21
    just the way the timing kinda kinda fell out. Um So
  • 00:34:25
    NPRR1229 what uh basically uh as we mentioned in,
  • 00:34:32
    in the introduction, um based on our experience over
  • 00:34:36
    the past, since last summer, we're seeing um ERCOT
  • 00:34:40
    need to react to uh the, the changing resource mix
  • 00:34:45
    Uh And so when they're, when they're doing so, uh we're
  • 00:34:49
    seeing them operate the transmission system and in
  • 00:34:52
    some atypical configurations
  • 00:34:56
    which uh we've been um subject subjected to. Um And
  • 00:35:03
    so we're, we're seeking urgency just like ERCOT to
  • 00:35:06
    get this in place by, by August 1st whenever we think
  • 00:35:09
    uh the risk will be highest um for us. So
  • 00:35:16
    that's the intent. Um And that's why we need it urgent
  • 00:35:19
    uh to address it. Uh Before uh that risk is the highest
  • 00:35:23
    um starting in August.
  • 00:35:26
    Thank you, Lucas
  • 00:35:30
    Eric,
  • 00:35:32
    thank you Lucas. Um I um don't think that this uh merits
  • 00:35:39
    urgency um because it's I think apparent to readers
  • 00:35:43
    that this NPRR will take some work uh if it is
  • 00:35:48
    um able to be proved at all um because we're creating
  • 00:35:52
    a new, make whole payment um for a new policy reason
  • 00:35:58
    Um I think it would be a dereliction of our duty to
  • 00:36:02
    not give that the thorough consideration that deserve
  • 00:36:05
    to, to do it right, if we're going to do it at
  • 00:36:07
    all. Um, I, I'm skeptical of whether or not this is
  • 00:36:12
    um, appropriate policy because it seems like it's retreating
  • 00:36:15
    from some of the principles of the Nodal market design
  • 00:36:18
    Um, so I, I think it merits an extensive discussion
  • 00:36:22
    and therefore I'll be in no urgency. Thanks.
  • 00:36:28
    Thank you, Eric.
  • 00:36:31
    Like, yeah, Blake Holt, LCRA. Um I I'd like to hear
  • 00:36:35
    hear back from ERCOT. I know they had some concerns
  • 00:36:38
    about the language. I'd like to see if maybe the more
  • 00:36:41
    recent filing of the comments has has calmed the concerns
  • 00:36:46
    but also I would just like some more time to understand
  • 00:36:49
    this one. Just thinking through 1198 which was recently
  • 00:36:53
    passed, it introduced an EAP which is a type of CMP
  • 00:36:58
    and my understanding is radialis gen is not allowed
  • 00:37:01
    there or it's one of the guard rails of that process
  • 00:37:05
    So I I just personally need some more time to, to understand
  • 00:37:08
    where this one's going. Thanks. Thanks Blake,
  • 00:37:14
    Alex Miller.
  • 00:37:17
    I did just wanna reflect what Blake was, was mentioning
  • 00:37:22
    there. Um If there are concerns to stack that the changes
  • 00:37:28
    from 1198 and the introduction of EAPs has anything
  • 00:37:31
    to do with this, there are multiple guard rails in
  • 00:37:35
    there to allow generators that would be radialis to
  • 00:37:40
    um to to agree to that situation. Um And that would
  • 00:37:45
    also probably need to be clarified in here. It's another
  • 00:37:48
    thing that does, would require um extensive discussion
  • 00:37:53
    to make sure you're being fair if someone is voluntarily
  • 00:37:57
    uh agreeing to benefit from reduced congestion. Um
  • 00:38:01
    And then they're not gonna ask consumers to, to pay
  • 00:38:04
    for that if they have an outage. So I do think the
  • 00:38:08
    um EAPs probably don't fall under this, but this definitely
  • 00:38:13
    needs some, it, a thorough review. Thank you, Alex
  • 00:38:20
    Bill. You're in the queue. Do you wanna let Austin
  • 00:38:24
    resolve from ERCOT address Blake's comment first or
  • 00:38:28
    did, does it?
  • 00:38:31
    Yes. Ok. Austin, go ahead please.
  • 00:38:36
    Yeah, thank you. So um yeah, we did see the sorry
  • 00:38:39
    I feel like I'm really loud. Um
  • 00:38:44
    So to answer Blake's question directly as the um you
  • 00:38:47
    know, mechanically the settlement language still needs
  • 00:38:49
    some work, right? So there's like kind of two parts
  • 00:38:51
    right? There's the whole, the whole settlement mechanics
  • 00:38:53
    of it all. Uh That's just the settlement equations
  • 00:38:57
    and whatnot or this is probably the simpler. The two
  • 00:38:59
    the other one is all the policy changes. So the the
  • 00:39:03
    comments, the second set of comments filed by stack
  • 00:39:06
    does help get the settlement mechanics sorted out but
  • 00:39:09
    but they're not complete. We still need to do some
  • 00:39:10
    work on the uh on the settlement equations, especially
  • 00:39:13
    considering the fact that if this was granted urgency
  • 00:39:16
    and what tact in a couple weeks um and, and went through
  • 00:39:20
    um there's, there would be a manual implementation
  • 00:39:23
    so that would be requires even some further, you know
  • 00:39:26
    miscellaneous invoice type language and that sort of
  • 00:39:28
    thing. So in terms of that, you know, those are, those
  • 00:39:31
    are surmountable issues just getting the settlement
  • 00:39:33
    language sorted out, but that's still a very tight
  • 00:39:36
    timeline. Um However, you know, thank you for reading
  • 00:39:40
    my comments. I got them out pretty quick. I I got some
  • 00:39:42
    feedback that maybe I the way I formatted them came
  • 00:39:45
    out a little strong. Sorry about that, I think in bullet
  • 00:39:47
    points. But um yeah, we wanted to make sure to lay
  • 00:39:51
    out some of the issues, some of the more substantive
  • 00:39:53
    issues um for y'all to consider like Eric said earlier
  • 00:39:57
    I think the this these are policy, this is a a new
  • 00:40:00
    policy that we can't just forklift language from elsewhere
  • 00:40:02
    in the protocols and put in. So I think there's probably
  • 00:40:04
    a lot of devils in the details kind of stuff here.
  • 00:40:07
    We do have um language, you know, where we kind takes
  • 00:40:11
    an action um and it causes demonstrable financial harm
  • 00:40:16
    to the resource like the HDL or the uh OS a type
  • 00:40:19
    settlements. We do have mechanisms for males, but we
  • 00:40:22
    don't have one for damage to equipment as far as I
  • 00:40:26
    know. And I think that is verifying how deep y'all
  • 00:40:30
    would want us to go and verifying and confirming damage
  • 00:40:33
    to equipment caused by a forced outage caused by A
  • 00:40:35
    CMP which even then verifying that the CMP caused
  • 00:40:40
    the outage is another, another kind of area we'd have
  • 00:40:42
    to figure out how to, how to verify. Um I, sorry, I'm
  • 00:40:46
    kind of rambling. I think there is some, some substantive
  • 00:40:48
    things to discuss on that side, both policy wise and
  • 00:40:53
    how, how would we, how would we do that verification
  • 00:40:56
    and the timelines and whatnot around that? Um Also
  • 00:40:59
    was, well, I'm have the mic in talking the other um
  • 00:41:02
    concept was the uh um opportunity cost payment. Um
  • 00:41:09
    There probably should be some more discussion there
  • 00:41:11
    and guardrails around there and how we would, would
  • 00:41:13
    verify them and you know, maybe limit payment to that
  • 00:41:17
    based on all kinds of scenarios that can happen. So
  • 00:41:21
    we, we haven't been able to talk about this internally
  • 00:41:23
    very much at ERCOT. We actually STEC reached out to us
  • 00:41:26
    last week. Um you know, get some initial feedback and
  • 00:41:31
    we had scheduled some discussions uh next week. So
  • 00:41:35
    we really haven't had a chance to circle the wagons
  • 00:41:37
    internally on this. So everything I say may not be
  • 00:41:40
    a comprehensive list of, of all the issues that we
  • 00:41:44
    that we may need to sort out there could be some more
  • 00:41:46
    operational type things that we need to discuss or
  • 00:41:49
    were the operations turns into settlements? Right,
  • 00:41:52
    that scene between the two that we haven't really flushed
  • 00:41:55
    out yet either. So, so we, we may have more comments
  • 00:41:59
    to come
  • 00:42:01
    Thank you, Austin Blake. Was that helpful? Ok. No.
  • 00:42:07
    Yeah, thanks. Uh Similar to some of the other commenters
  • 00:42:10
    we don't support urgency on this is this is a bigger
  • 00:42:14
    policy change I think needs to be vetted a little bit
  • 00:42:17
    further and we're a little bit confused as to what
  • 00:42:19
    is actually happening here. So as part of the discussion
  • 00:42:24
    um perhaps at WMS, we could refer it or create an
  • 00:42:29
    assignment. Um I'd like to know personally what, what
  • 00:42:32
    is actually happening like this, there's a resource
  • 00:42:35
    that's not subject to the CMP that's actually getting
  • 00:42:37
    tripped offline as a result of the CMP. Um So just
  • 00:42:41
    understanding in detail what is actually happening
  • 00:42:44
    I think would help us as well. Um So that's where we're
  • 00:42:48
    at.
  • 00:42:50
    Thank you, Bill Katie.
  • 00:42:57
    Thanks Diana. I wanted to go back to Alex because um
  • 00:43:01
    1198 language was already approved and you know, it's
  • 00:43:04
    up for I a review today. So Alex, I don't mean to
  • 00:43:08
    make you repeat yourself, but can you kind of compare
  • 00:43:11
    what 1198 does compared to this and what some of the
  • 00:43:14
    benefits are?
  • 00:43:16
    Yes, thank you, Katie. Um And I see Freddie got in
  • 00:43:20
    the queue as well, so we'll definitely give him a turn
  • 00:43:23
    Uh But I did just want to reiterate the EAPs as a
  • 00:43:26
    subset of the CMPs that are being discussed by this
  • 00:43:30
    CPR as an umbrella. Um Do specifically have a guardrail
  • 00:43:35
    that any resource that is, that would be potentially
  • 00:43:39
    operating is generally impacted. And that, and it does
  • 00:43:42
    specify that that includes becoming radicalized in
  • 00:43:45
    a contingency, um are, are part of the process to um
  • 00:43:53
    to ha have a, have a basically a veto of that EAP
  • 00:43:59
    if they would be impacted in this way and don't want
  • 00:44:02
    to be a part of that. They can, they can, they can
  • 00:44:05
    say no and then it won't move forward. We also added
  • 00:44:08
    additional um opportunities for at any time after they're
  • 00:44:14
    implemented. If the system changes something, another
  • 00:44:18
    outage causes a change that then puts a generator at
  • 00:44:21
    risk, they could raise their hand and ask for it to
  • 00:44:23
    be suspended during that period. So there are many
  • 00:44:26
    guard rails for the EAP specifically that should prevent
  • 00:44:30
    this from being applicable to, to those.
  • 00:44:38
    Thank you Friday. Do you wanna? Sure. Yeah. And maybe
  • 00:44:41
    I can provide a little bit more color on the, on the
  • 00:44:44
    situation. Um And, and see if I can describe. Um so
  • 00:44:50
    when there are instances when there's a generation
  • 00:44:54
    getaway problem. So if you have a contingency that
  • 00:44:59
    there's not enough transmission for that generator
  • 00:45:02
    to uh be at full output. And so in some cases, you
  • 00:45:07
    can open a breaker where if the contingency happens
  • 00:45:12
    it isolates that generator. So what that does, it,
  • 00:45:16
    it, it shows it that constraint no longer shows up
  • 00:45:18
    in RTCA. It's no longer seen as a violation uh
  • 00:45:22
    and minus one. So that allows that generator to be
  • 00:45:27
    at full output. There's no longer a constraint because
  • 00:45:30
    that breaker is open so that there's already a financial
  • 00:45:35
    benefit there because that generator is no longer constrained
  • 00:45:39
    But the risk is, if the contingency were to actually
  • 00:45:42
    happen, it would isolate that generator from the system
  • 00:45:45
    And I think that's what's being contemplated here.
  • 00:45:50
    Um uh Is the risk of isolating that generator beneficial
  • 00:45:56
    enough. And so I think that's, that's where I think
  • 00:46:00
    uh Lucas is coming from, but I would say there's already
  • 00:46:04
    a normally a ben, an economic benefit whenever we do
  • 00:46:08
    these actions.
  • 00:46:10
    Thank you, Ian Haley, Morgan Stanley.
  • 00:46:15
    Uh Luke is very sympathetic to your NPRR and um
  • 00:46:19
    generators incurring costs that are out of their control
  • 00:46:23
    uh due to actions for reliability. Um After hearing
  • 00:46:28
    ERCOT thoughts though and I like the bullet points
  • 00:46:30
    I apologize if I came off as not liking them. Um I
  • 00:46:35
    don't think this is ready to move forward. Um I don't
  • 00:46:39
    think I, I am hopeful that you and ERCOT or sorry,
  • 00:46:44
    Ste and ERCOT can work together often in next month
  • 00:46:46
    that it can be granted urgency and move forward. Um
  • 00:46:49
    And I would also suggest to you that uh just going
  • 00:46:53
    to the other to WMS ROS and applicable working groups
  • 00:46:57
    may be your fastest way. Um I don't wanna refer it
  • 00:47:00
    today because I feel like that may slow it down. Um
  • 00:47:04
    So that's currently how I will be voting.
  • 00:47:08
    Thank you, Anne Cliff. Yeah, good morning, everyone
  • 00:47:13
    So good to be back with you today. Um Wanted to be
  • 00:47:16
    a little bit more explicit about, you know, this specific
  • 00:47:19
    situation that raised urgency for us. Um You know,
  • 00:47:22
    to, to Freddie's point. Um You know, this is a specific
  • 00:47:27
    issue uh where we've got this South Texas GTC Now,
  • 00:47:31
    um on the south side of San Antonio, where you're looking
  • 00:47:33
    at opening up a specific breaker, um that if activated
  • 00:47:37
    uh or if you see a subsequent trip uh of a specific
  • 00:47:41
    transmission line, then you turn out a dispatchable
  • 00:47:45
    generator. And so isolation of a generator equates
  • 00:47:49
    to a quick uh uh essentially tripping of a generator
  • 00:47:53
    in that regard. So that being said, when you look at
  • 00:47:56
    it, the whole reason the PCAP is being implemented and
  • 00:47:59
    you can look at the ERCOT, um you can look at the
  • 00:48:02
    eco procedures that are out there right now. It's done
  • 00:48:04
    specifically for a very specific um GTC uh that ultimately
  • 00:48:10
    benefits the system as a whole. And in that, when I
  • 00:48:14
    say it benefits the system as a whole, what you're
  • 00:48:16
    asking to do is put a single generator at risk for
  • 00:48:20
    the benefit of the rest of the system to increase transfer
  • 00:48:23
    capability from South Texas to North Texas. And so
  • 00:48:26
    the question is, is that appropriate? And is that right
  • 00:48:30
    To ask a single generator or a single entity to take
  • 00:48:34
    the risk for the remainder of the system without compensation
  • 00:48:38
    That generator would not normally be in a situation
  • 00:48:41
    where it would be at that much risk because of the
  • 00:48:43
    way that it was chose to interconnect to the ERCOT
  • 00:48:45
    transmission system. And therefore, should you be requiring
  • 00:48:50
    one entity or one generator or in our case, nine members
  • 00:48:55
    to take the risk for the benefit of the rest of the
  • 00:48:57
    ERCOT system. And I think that is a policy issue, but
  • 00:49:00
    that's a huge policy issue. I think it borders on a
  • 00:49:02
    taking to a certain extent. And so that's something
  • 00:49:05
    we've got to consider as well. Um But this isn't just
  • 00:49:09
    to be clear, this has nothing to do with an extended
  • 00:49:11
    action plan or an EAP. Uh but rather a PCAP that's
  • 00:49:14
    being proposed at this point in time. So that's why
  • 00:49:18
    the urgency is coming about is because we're getting
  • 00:49:20
    into those conditions where this may become a specific
  • 00:49:23
    issue and again, requesting one entity to take the
  • 00:49:26
    risk for the benefit of the rest of the ERCOT system
  • 00:49:29
    during high load conditions. And so in the instance
  • 00:49:31
    that this these high load conditions appear, they're
  • 00:49:35
    obviously at times where uh resource or prices are
  • 00:49:40
    obviously gonna be generally pretty high. And so as
  • 00:49:43
    a result, the hedge value of that resource is lost
  • 00:49:47
    uh to that single entity in that regard. So wanted
  • 00:49:50
    to provide a little bit more color, uh a little bit
  • 00:49:53
    more in terms of an understanding so that we're, we're
  • 00:49:56
    not just talking around um thinking that this is a
  • 00:49:59
    nebulous issue, but this is a very real issue. Thanks
  • 00:50:05
    Thank you, Cliff. Always good to have you back.
  • 00:50:09
    Lucas
  • 00:50:13
    Lucas. Did you wanna respond or do you wanna? He said
  • 00:50:16
    that I was just gonna make the, the, the same comment
  • 00:50:18
    about one entity,
  • 00:50:22
    Mr Barnes. Yeah, Cliff. This is where I'm confused
  • 00:50:26
    It, it's been a while since we've had a CMP. But any
  • 00:50:29
    CMP that affects a particular generator requires a
  • 00:50:32
    generator's approval. So you would like you, you're
  • 00:50:35
    essentially reviewing the scheme and approving along
  • 00:50:39
    with the TOs that are involved. It's a joint process
  • 00:50:43
    So that's why I'm confused is what's going on here
  • 00:50:46
    is, is there is a CMP that's getting proposed that
  • 00:50:49
    is not, you are not subject to, that is going to actually
  • 00:50:52
    impact uh the operation of your facility or this is
  • 00:50:56
    part of CMP that you have proposed um along with
  • 00:50:59
    the TOS which like Freddie had said, gives you some
  • 00:51:03
    benefit because you'll get more getaway. So can can
  • 00:51:06
    you help me with that one? It, so I mean, in this
  • 00:51:10
    particular instance, it for a period of time offers
  • 00:51:13
    more getaway, but you know, at some point in time,
  • 00:51:16
    you know, the transfer capability gets to be so great
  • 00:51:18
    between South Texas and North Texas, that, that getaway
  • 00:51:21
    capability is in essence lost. And so that resource
  • 00:51:23
    really ultimately doesn't get uh any additional getaway
  • 00:51:27
    in that regard. So, I mean, that, that being said,
  • 00:51:30
    you know, this is, you're right. I mean, you know,
  • 00:51:33
    when you're looking at CMPs, particularly PCAPs,
  • 00:51:35
    you have the opportunity to actually work with ERCOT
  • 00:51:38
    uh from the transmission side, from the to side to
  • 00:51:41
    to implement that Peak Cap or not. But I guess the
  • 00:51:44
    question is, you know, when you're in this sort of
  • 00:51:46
    situation where the ERCOT system is in need of generation
  • 00:51:51
    um particularly generation across a particular constraint
  • 00:51:55
    to, to serve, you know, another portion of the state
  • 00:51:59
    you know, the risk is, is that, you know, if, if the
  • 00:52:02
    generator doesn't, you know, isn't subject to this
  • 00:52:05
    particular PCAP or whatever that you may end up with
  • 00:52:08
    load shedding on the other side of the constraint.
  • 00:52:10
    So the question becomes, are you better off to uh you
  • 00:52:13
    know, tripping that particular resource so that you
  • 00:52:16
    can continue to serve load on the other side of the
  • 00:52:18
    constraint? Uh or are you better off tripping load
  • 00:52:21
    on the other side of the constraint as well? And so
  • 00:52:24
    that's, that's what the question boils down to. So
  • 00:52:27
    from, you know, in terms of coming to agreement on
  • 00:52:30
    PCAP, you need to understand exactly what the dynamics
  • 00:52:32
    are. And obviously, we want to serve as much load across
  • 00:52:36
    the system as we possibly can. Um, so it, it puts you
  • 00:52:40
    in a little bit of a quandary there. Do you agree to
  • 00:52:42
    a, to a PCAP that ultimately ends up tripping off
  • 00:52:45
    your generator or, you know, putting ERCOT in a position
  • 00:52:48
    of potentially having a share a shed load, uh, when
  • 00:52:51
    maybe they wouldn't have to.
  • 00:52:54
    So this is trying to strike a balance in between. I
  • 00:52:58
    don't know if that helped you there or not, Bill
  • 00:53:01
    little bit to appreciate it. Yeah,
  • 00:53:08
    Eric Goff
  • 00:53:11
    uh Cliff, it's good to hear from you. Uh I'm always
  • 00:53:15
    glad uh when you can be here, although I appreciate
  • 00:53:19
    you doing more uh than you have in the past. Um I
  • 00:53:23
    think um to the extent that we move forward um with
  • 00:53:28
    something, I think we would need to significantly narrowly
  • 00:53:31
    tailor. Um you know, the what would qualify and, and
  • 00:53:37
    and how uh for a situation like this, um rather than
  • 00:53:42
    the general statements that we have here. Um I think
  • 00:53:45
    we do need to get into the specific details of um what's
  • 00:53:51
    happening, Elijah, I agree with, with Bill's statements
  • 00:53:54
    and I wanna make sure that at the end of the day
  • 00:53:57
    we, I narrowly tailored um this uh if we pass it because
  • 00:54:05
    uh in general, um
  • 00:54:09
    we have a market design that um sends price signals
  • 00:54:13
    based on where people are um in the system and I wanna
  • 00:54:17
    make sure we don't move away from that. Um So, uh and
  • 00:54:22
    company a non urgency.
  • 00:54:25
    Yeah. And just to be clear, this wouldn't, this wouldn't
  • 00:54:28
    upset price signals in that regard or whatever. And
  • 00:54:31
    and to be honest in this particular situation, there
  • 00:54:33
    are transmission investments coming in the next few
  • 00:54:36
    years that will mitigate this particular constraint
  • 00:54:39
    Um at least for a few years anyways. And so, um you
  • 00:54:42
    know, this would be at least in this particular situation
  • 00:54:45
    relatively short term use of it uh in that regard.
  • 00:54:54
    All right. Thank you, Freddie.
  • 00:54:58
    Oh, ok. Um, Alex,
  • 00:55:02
    I don't know that I needed to be in the queue either
  • 00:55:03
    but I was just clarifying. I don't think that in the
  • 00:55:06
    reliability CMP situations, generators have the opportunity
  • 00:55:11
    to opt out. It's when it's just when there's the decision
  • 00:55:14
    that is best for, essential for reliability and best
  • 00:55:18
    for the system. Um That's not part of, of those other
  • 00:55:23
    types of CMPs.
  • 00:55:25
    Sorry, I probably wasn't clear on that. Alex is correct
  • 00:55:27
    on that.
  • 00:55:30
    All right. Thank you, Alex, Eric Lakey.
  • 00:55:35
    Yeah, I just trying to get my head around this. I was
  • 00:55:38
    curious, Cliff. Uh There's been a lot of talk at the
  • 00:55:40
    commission about, you know, the GTCs and, and when
  • 00:55:44
    I hear y'all talking about this being a policy question
  • 00:55:48
    or a policy decision, I I'm curious if there was consideration
  • 00:55:53
    that to take this to the commission as part of that
  • 00:55:56
    discussion so we could get some direction.
  • 00:56:03
    Yeah, that's a good question, Eric. I know we've been
  • 00:56:05
    working directly with ERCOT quite a bit on this. Uh
  • 00:56:07
    up and down um you know, the chain there at this juncture
  • 00:56:11
    or whatever. So, you know, we, we need to make sure
  • 00:56:13
    that you know, us and ERCOT are on the same page at
  • 00:56:16
    this at this point or whatever, which I think in many
  • 00:56:19
    instances were largely aligned, but obviously, there's
  • 00:56:21
    still some additional work to do um on some of this
  • 00:56:24
    here. So that being said, and I don't want to speak
  • 00:56:27
    for ERCOT in that regard, but you know, it's been pretty
  • 00:56:29
    productive conversations um Generally speaking. And
  • 00:56:33
    so anyhow, that's, but we wanted to get this out and
  • 00:56:35
    get uh get rolling with it as early as we could given
  • 00:56:39
    the risk for this summer.
  • 00:56:44
    Ok.
  • 00:56:46
    We have a clear queue at this point and just as a
  • 00:56:49
    reminder, we did waive notice on it, we could do one
  • 00:56:54
    of two things we could grant urgency on this item or
  • 00:56:58
    we could not do anything and this would be um an agenda
  • 00:57:03
    item for the June PRS and Corey has given me a
  • 00:57:07
    nod. So at least I know I'm correct. So what is the
  • 00:57:10
    will of the group? Do we have an appetite for urgency
  • 00:57:14
    or would we rather just leave it until next month?
  • 00:57:20
    Leave? Ok. Not seeing any motions or any support for
  • 00:57:25
    the urgency. We're gonna leave it as is we don't have
  • 00:57:27
    to do anything else to it until June and then we will
  • 00:57:31
    um Corey correct me if I'm wrong. But at the June
  • 00:57:34
    PRS
  • 00:57:36
    um we would take a look at the urgency one more time
  • 00:57:40
    and then the language correct. Yes, at the June PRS
  • 00:57:44
    the 14 day comment period will have expired. So just
  • 00:57:47
    like everything else that's met the 14 day comment
  • 00:57:49
    period on the seven day notice, everything is available
  • 00:57:52
    to gra and urgent status if you feel the need and if
  • 00:57:55
    the timing of board and commission meetings works out
  • 00:57:57
    for you. So absolutely, all options are still on the
  • 00:58:00
    table at the June PRS and now that this is out
  • 00:58:03
    there numbered and filed the June WMS, June ROS,
  • 00:58:06
    any working groups that you'd like to see it taken
  • 00:58:08
    up with, certainly reach out to the leadership of those
  • 00:58:11
    groups and get it added to their agendas so that you
  • 00:58:13
    don't have to wait for the June PRS to officially
  • 00:58:15
    send it anywhere. Good reminders. Lucas, I'd move for
  • 00:58:20
    urgency. I'd make a motion for it. Ok. We have a motion
  • 00:58:23
    by Lucas for urgency. Do we have a second?
  • 00:58:30
    Ok. I am not saying a second. Ok.
  • 00:58:36
    Is there any other alternative ti uh for this uh uh
  • 00:58:40
    special PRS or anything like that? That would, that
  • 00:58:44
    was the will of PRS. PRS leadership can certainly
  • 00:58:47
    call as many special meetings as needed similar to
  • 00:58:52
    TAC. Um it would be up to PRS leadership and the
  • 00:58:56
    group to decide if
  • 00:59:00
    on that could STEC appeal directly to TAC if they wanted
  • 00:59:04
    to or, or the appeals appeals are for actions taken
  • 00:59:10
    And in this case, PRS has taken no action because
  • 00:59:13
    it hasn't met the 14 day comment period to be formally
  • 00:59:15
    considered. So if ERCOT were to reject something or table
  • 00:59:19
    something taken action on it, then it could be appealed
  • 00:59:22
    up. But in this case, it hasn't cleared the bar for
  • 00:59:25
    PRS to even take an action yet. So this is still
  • 00:59:27
    just a brand new one. So there's nothing to appeal
  • 00:59:29
    yet, Eric Goff.
  • 00:59:34
    Um Lucas, do you want something to appeal?
  • 00:59:44
    I guess. Um
  • 00:59:49
    What are you thinking? So like hypothetically there
  • 00:59:53
    could be a rejected motion on urgency and Corey. Would
  • 00:59:57
    that be something that could be appealed? Not not the
  • 01:00:01
    urgency on it. But if you were to say urgently table
  • 01:00:04
    it because you wanted to create urgent status to get
  • 01:00:07
    out of the 14 day comment period and then didn't it
  • 01:00:10
    didn't accept it, but you wanted to table it an urgently
  • 01:00:13
    tabled motion. If that were successful, then that would
  • 01:00:17
    be appealable up to TAC. Ok. I'll take it back then
  • 01:00:20
    just because um because tabling and urgency have different
  • 01:00:25
    thresholds. II I don't wanna grant the opportunity
  • 01:00:27
    to give it the majority vote. Yeah,
  • 01:00:33
    thanks. Thank you, Eric. Ok, please. All Right. Thank
  • 01:00:39
    you all for that discussion. Oh Cliff, please appreciate
  • 01:00:44
    it. Yeah, I was just gonna say ideally I think what
  • 01:00:47
    we would look for is just to go ahead and get urgency
  • 01:00:49
    granted here and then just move to the table at this
  • 01:00:52
    point or whatever. So fully understanding that our
  • 01:00:54
    goal would be to come back next month and hopefully
  • 01:00:57
    have everything ironed out and ready to move on as
  • 01:00:59
    quickly as we can. But uh not sure if there's an appetite
  • 01:01:02
    to do that today,
  • 01:01:05
    we didn't see an appetite at the in the room. But as
  • 01:01:08
    Corey reminded us, now that the NPRR is out there
  • 01:01:12
    this conversation can be had at the different working
  • 01:01:14
    groups. And so by the time we get to PRS, it
  • 01:01:17
    doesn't have to be our initial conversation with us
  • 01:01:19
    So hopefully next month we'll have um some, some more
  • 01:01:23
    to come back with and, and take a look at it there
  • 01:01:30
    Ok.
  • 01:01:33
    Anything else on 1229 before we move to 1230? I wanna
  • Item 5.3 - NPRR1230, Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Waive Notice – Possible Vote
    01:01:36
    make sure I'm getting everybody. Ok. So 1230 was posted
  • 01:01:44
    on May 7th. So again, this is a really good PRS
  • 01:01:48
    meeting to remind us of all of our Robert rules of
  • 01:01:51
    orders and all of the ways that we have to do things
  • 01:01:53
    So, excuse me. So the first thing we have to do is
  • 01:01:57
    to waive notice and if that is successful, we have
  • 01:02:00
    a motion by Bob Hilton, second by Kevin. And then we'll
  • 01:02:03
    do um urgency. Let them tee that up. Excuse me. All
  • 01:02:10
    right, Corey. All right. Thank you all on the motion
  • 01:02:14
    to waive notice for NPRR1230. We will start up with
  • 01:02:19
    the consumers with Eric. Yes. Thank you, Nabaraj.
  • 01:02:25
    Yes. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Ryan. Yes. Thank you
  • 01:02:31
    under our CoOps Lucas.
  • 01:02:34
    Yes. Thank you, Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank
  • 01:02:39
    you on to our independent generators. Andy. Yes, thanks
  • 01:02:42
    Thank you, Caitlin
  • 01:02:49
    Caitlin Smith. Are you with us,
  • 01:02:58
    Katie? Yes. Thank you, Bryan Sams. I'm gonna abstain
  • 01:03:04
    All right, that works. Carrie. Yes. Thank you, Bob
  • 01:03:10
    Helton. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir, Alex. Yes. Thank
  • 01:03:15
    you. Check for David Mendham again with us David
  • 01:03:22
    not Sam under IPMs John. Yes. Thank you, Resmi.
  • 01:03:32
    Yes. Thank you
  • 01:03:36
    the Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, and IREPs
  • 01:03:42
    Bill. Yes. Thank you, Aaron. Yes. Thank you under IOUs
  • 01:03:48
    Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer abstain.
  • 01:03:55
    Um Coy, let me just interrupt you real quick. Uh Mark
  • 01:03:59
    I have not, have you validated for voting today? I
  • 01:04:01
    did try and send you an email. I'm sorry, this is Susie
  • 01:04:04
    Clifton with ERCOT. Is it possible you could go ahead
  • 01:04:07
    and send an email to stakeholder services at ERCOT.com
  • 01:04:11
    that you are participating so that I can validate you
  • 01:04:14
    for voting today? Yes, I'll do that now. Thank you
  • 01:04:18
    Appreciate it. Thank you, Susie and I got Kaitlyn and
  • 01:04:22
    Chad as a Yes. Thank you, Caitlin.
  • 01:04:28
    I mark the distention for now, Jim. Yes, thanks Corey
  • 01:04:32
    Thank you and our Munis Diana. Thank you, Ashley. Yes
  • 01:04:38
    Thank you. And Fei Yes, thank you. Thank you. Did you
  • 01:04:41
    get Caitlin in the chat? I did get kit in the chat
  • 01:04:44
    Thank you. It hasn't been that better to your di
  • 01:04:52
    No, I'm sorry, Bryan Sams. No, I got you. I got you
  • 01:04:54
    at that one. Who, who, who am I missing? I'm getting
  • 01:05:05
    I think you gave Mark Spencer the abstention. So thank
  • 01:05:09
    you
  • 01:05:12
    among cold medicine. Appreciate you all. All right
  • 01:05:15
    Motion carries two extensions.
  • 01:05:20
    OK? I'm only operating Excel, not the grid.
  • 01:05:25
    Nice. OK. Now that we've waved notice, we can tee this
  • 01:05:30
    up. Um So ERCOT can give us a high level overview and
  • 01:05:34
    their need for urgency. Freddie, do you wanna go ahead
  • 01:05:36
    and take this one for us? Sure. Yeah. Good morning
  • 01:05:38
    everyone, Freddie Garcia with ERCOT operation. So first
  • 01:05:41
    I just want to apologize for such short notice on this
  • 01:05:45
    and I do really appreciate the consideration. Um As
  • 01:05:48
    as folks can probably imagine this is related to the
  • 01:05:52
    South Texas export IROL and really just trying to uh
  • 01:05:57
    give the operators additional tools to manage this
  • 01:06:01
    constraint going into summer since we are um getting
  • 01:06:06
    into summer. Um I will say that we do have an
  • 01:06:15
    alternate mechanism to, to do this um which we've done
  • 01:06:20
    last summer. Through HDO overrides. But the preference
  • 01:06:24
    would be to allow skid to control this constraint um
  • 01:06:31
    using our market tools that we do have and, and, and
  • 01:06:34
    this is really what this is trying to do it. It's trying
  • 01:06:36
    to give SCED that controllability of the, the IOL.
  • 01:06:40
    Um
  • 01:06:43
    I do have a presentation I can give but I guess we
  • 01:06:47
    would wait till after the urgency is granted or not
  • 01:06:50
    I want, first of all,
  • 01:06:55
    Corey, just as a quick clarification, we can do the
  • 01:06:58
    uh the presentation now or do we just wait till we
  • 01:07:01
    do the urgency vote. And then we, once we get the language
  • 01:07:03
    we can do that part. It's really the will of the group
  • 01:07:06
    um in so much as the presentation would encourage you
  • 01:07:09
    all to grant urgency great. But if it was, you know
  • 01:07:11
    if 99 percent of you were against urgency, well, then
  • 01:07:14
    it would just be a waste of time to make Freddy walk
  • 01:07:16
    through it. So it's whatever the the will of the group
  • 01:07:18
    is, if it would help. And the presentation is really
  • 01:07:21
    just going through the mechanics of the change. Um
  • 01:07:24
    But at a high level, this is really just increasing
  • 01:07:27
    the shadow price cap to allow skid to continue to manage
  • 01:07:31
    uh the IROL and scarcity conditions. Ok. Well, let's
  • 01:07:36
    work through the queue and then we'll see if we get
  • 01:07:38
    to the presentation part. If that sounds OK to everybody
  • 01:07:40
    Brian.
  • 01:07:44
    Hey, good morning. Everyone. So the reason I'm opposed
  • 01:07:49
    to urgency is one, I think we're still trying to digest
  • 01:07:53
    what this means. Um But if you scroll to uh page 16
  • 01:08:01
    please,
  • 01:08:12
    um Yeah, right there. We, we have just some concerns
  • 01:08:16
    with this last paragraph here that say that, you know
  • 01:08:18
    the shadow price cap can be updated at any time based
  • 01:08:22
    on ERCOTs review. And uh we'd like to see more notice
  • 01:08:26
    prior to, um you know, just the market notice being
  • 01:08:30
    sent afterwards that it's become effective. That's
  • 01:08:33
    one of our major concerns.
  • 01:08:40
    Thank you, Brian Eric.
  • 01:08:44
    Um I have a strong preference for resolving this item
  • 01:08:49
    through SCED um and um sending the appropriate pricing
  • 01:08:54
    notes here, so I support urgency. I'd be willing to
  • 01:08:57
    make a motion to grant it. Urgency that said Brian
  • 01:09:00
    great point on this paragraph and maybe it's, you know
  • 01:09:04
    this discreet thing about the time period for notice
  • 01:09:06
    is something we can modify.
  • 01:09:10
    Ok, Martha
  • 01:09:13
    Martha second. That was just ok, great. So we have
  • 01:09:18
    emotion.
  • 01:09:21
    Is that by you, Eric or who? Yes. Ok. So we have
  • 01:09:26
    a motion by Eric and a second by Martha for urgency
  • 01:09:32
    Katie
  • 01:09:35
    Martha beat me to it. Ok. She's got this
  • 01:09:41
    any other discussion on the boat? For urgency?
  • 01:09:46
    Ok. Corey does urgency take 50% of two thirds? Urgency
  • 01:09:50
    is just 50% waving notice is the two thirds one. Thanks
  • 01:09:55
    Mm
  • 01:09:58
    ok. So on our motion to grant 1230 urgent status. We
  • 01:10:02
    will start up with the consumers with Eric. Yeah. Thank
  • 01:10:06
    you, Nabaraj. Yes, thank you, Mark. Thank you, sir, Ryan
  • 01:10:12
    Yes. Thank you on to our CoOps Lucas.
  • 01:10:17
    Yes. Thank you, Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank
  • 01:10:22
    you on our independent generators. Andy. No, thanks
  • 01:10:26
    Thank you, Caitlin.
  • 01:10:30
    I stay. Ok. Thank you, Katie. Yes. Thank you, Brian
  • 01:10:37
    Sams. No, thanks, sir, Carrie. Yes. Thank you, Bob
  • 01:10:44
    Hilton. Yes, sir. Thanks sir, Alex.
  • 01:10:48
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 01:10:52
    Double checking for David. Ok. On to our IPMs John
  • 01:10:58
    I stay. Ok. Thank you, sir, Rosie. Yes, thank you,
  • 01:11:03
    Ian. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you. Thank you on
  • 01:11:07
    our IRs Bill. Yes. Thank you, Erin. Yes. Thank you
  • 01:11:14
    under IOUs Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer abstain
  • 01:11:21
    Thank you, Jim. Yes. Thanks Cori. Thank you on immunities
  • 01:11:25
    Diana Epstein. Thank you, Ashley saying thank you and
  • 01:11:32
    Fei. Abstein. Thank you.
  • 01:11:39
    Ok. That motion carries one oppose six abstentions
  • 01:11:44
    Ok. Thank you, everybody.
  • 01:11:51
    So now we can now. Yes, we now everything's on the
  • 01:11:56
    table. All right. So we'll go ahead and let Freddie
  • 01:12:00
    walk us through their presentation and some. Ok.
  • 01:12:07
    This is 1224 though. Sorry, I was like, did I,
  • 01:12:12
    I was like, wow,
  • 01:12:16
    I'm subtly encouraged. I really thought it was very
  • 01:12:19
    efficient and I forgot the whole like section and a
  • 01:12:21
    half. I was like, wow, look at it. It's only 1043.
  • 01:12:26
    That is amazing.
  • 01:12:31
    We're wearing all those together, we're wearing you
  • 01:12:34
    out just because we have all the wave notice and all
  • 01:12:37
    Freddie. Sorry, go ahead.
  • 01:12:40
    All right again, Freddy Garcia ERCOT operations. Um
  • 01:12:45
    so I guess I'll just start with the problem and I've
  • 01:12:47
    and I've kind of gone through some of this already
  • 01:12:50
    Um, but, uh, some of the observations we've seen last
  • 01:12:55
    summer specifically with the South Texas IROL in periods
  • 01:12:59
    of scarcity. Uh There were instances where SCED was
  • 01:13:06
    struggling to manage IROL or the constraint um and
  • 01:13:11
    essentially relaxing it in favor of power balance.
  • 01:13:16
    Um And so this made it very difficult for the control
  • 01:13:19
    room to, to manage it. Um They did resort to HDO overrides
  • 01:13:23
    which I think most of you guys remember. Um And in
  • 01:13:28
    the period between now and when or if this NPRR is
  • 01:13:33
    approved, they will continue to use AC O overrides
  • 01:13:37
    Um uh Some problems with that. It does require a lot
  • 01:13:41
    of ma manual intervention with the control room. Um
  • 01:13:45
    They're having to go page by page to, to make these
  • 01:13:48
    overrides when they should probably be focusing on
  • 01:13:51
    the scarcity conditions or the emergency conditions
  • 01:13:54
    at the time. So, um and then also, I think most of
  • 01:13:57
    you know, I I it's very difficult to hedge uh uh these
  • 01:14:01
    overrides um from a market pers perspective. Um So
  • 01:14:06
    this NPRR is, is trying to establish a method to increase
  • 01:14:11
    that shadow price cap for an IROL in order for SCED
  • 01:14:15
    to continue to manage it in scarcity conditions um
  • 01:14:21
    and also giving the control room better um uh uh management
  • 01:14:25
    of the constraint for, for reliability purposes.
  • 01:14:29
    Um So I I'm gonna get into the details a little bit
  • 01:14:32
    uh try to level set with everyone. So um here beginning
  • 01:14:37
    is, is the LMP calculation that we're all uh hopefully
  • 01:14:41
    familiar with. Um it's made up of two pieces. First
  • 01:14:45
    is the system lada which is the price for uh to serve
  • 01:14:49
    demand. And then we have on the right, the uh constraint
  • 01:14:53
    portion of that, of that calculation as well, which
  • 01:14:55
    is made up the of the shift factor of a resource on
  • 01:14:59
    a constraint and then also the associated uh shadow
  • 01:15:03
    price of that constraint. Um So the example I have
  • 01:15:08
    here is if we're in a scarcity condition, you have
  • 01:15:11
    prices of $5001 they're at the cap. Uh The system is
  • 01:15:16
    scarce of generation and you also have a generator
  • 01:15:21
    who has a 25% shift factor on an IOL constraint. Um
  • 01:15:27
    The, the cap for that for an IOL is $5251. So if
  • 01:15:34
    you do the math there, you come out with $3689 a very
  • 01:15:39
    large number. Um and it's not low enough of the value
  • 01:15:44
    for skid to push that resource all the way to LSL.
  • 01:15:48
    So I have a, a uh a make believe uh offer curve
  • 01:15:54
    for one generation resource. Um And you can see here
  • 01:15:57
    when you have prices that high, that unit will want
  • 01:16:00
    to go all the way to max output if it can. Um
  • 01:16:03
    what we really need to see is an LMP of something
  • 01:16:07
    closer to minus 50 to get a 20 Megawatt base point
  • 01:16:13
    or, or ideally a negative $100 for a um uh zero Megawatt
  • 01:16:19
    base point. So, uh that's what we're proposing is to
  • 01:16:23
    adjust that 5251 to some value higher so that we can
  • 01:16:29
    get an appropriate response uh from SCED to issue a
  • 01:16:32
    base point to this resource. Um So here's the proposal
  • 01:16:37
    um We're proposing to either set the shadow price cap
  • 01:16:42
    for an IOL to 5251 or if needed to this equation here
  • 01:16:49
    Um And, and, and I'll step through this equation just
  • 01:16:52
    so it makes a little bit more sense, but basically
  • 01:16:54
    you're using the power balance penalty max value. So
  • 01:16:58
    $5001 minus the mitigated offer floor of resource H
  • 01:17:03
    and I'll get into resource H on the next slide. But
  • 01:17:06
    uh for a, let's say again, a win resource that mitigated
  • 01:17:09
    offer floor is minus $100. And that's the minimum value
  • 01:17:15
    that we uh when resource can offer in um and then divided
  • 01:17:19
    by the shift factor of resource H and that should come
  • 01:17:24
    up with a new IROL shadow price.
  • 01:17:29
    Um And So going through a little bit of how we select
  • 01:17:33
    resource H if you take a, um the shift factors for
  • 01:17:40
    all the resources for an IROL constraint, you uh sort
  • 01:17:45
    them with the highest herding shift factor at the top
  • 01:17:50
    uh sending down. Um You, you basically get this and
  • 01:17:53
    then you're also looking at the corresponding HSLs
  • 01:17:56
    and LSLs and you're finding the difference between
  • 01:18:00
    the HSL and LSL to see the, the, the impact on that
  • 01:18:03
    resource. Um And we sum up uh but that difference of
  • 01:18:09
    HSL and LSL till we see roughly 895 and that 895 is
  • 01:18:14
    is really uh the frequency bias. Um We were looking
  • 01:18:18
    for a good measure on what is a cut off point. We
  • 01:18:21
    don't necessarily want to go all the way to the smallest
  • 01:18:23
    shift factor because that would result in a very large
  • 01:18:27
    uh shadow price. But something that represents how
  • 01:18:31
    many megawatts are we willing to curtail in a scarcity
  • 01:18:36
    situation. And the bias is, is somewhat uh representative
  • 01:18:41
    of that. So if you were to lose 895 megawatts, you
  • 01:18:44
    would have roughly 1/10 of a herp change in frequency
  • 01:18:47
    Um There are other mechanisms in place like Ancillary
  • 01:18:51
    services, uh governor response that wouldn't necessarily
  • 01:18:54
    allow us to get that level of frequency. But we thought
  • 01:18:57
    it was a good measure of for, for a cut off. So
  • 01:19:01
    um so we sum up the differences of HSL and LSL until
  • 01:19:05
    we see roughly 895 and you can see resource or unit
  • 01:19:10
    nine in this list um is uh roughly that. And so it
  • 01:19:15
    has a shift factor of 25%. And so if resource H is
  • 01:19:23
    unit nine, you plug in those values I just showed in
  • 01:19:27
    the previous slide. So your power balance penalty of
  • 01:19:30
    $5001 minus negative $100 over the 25% shift factor
  • 01:19:37
    of resource nine or unit nine, you get roughly a 20,322
  • 01:19:43
    shadow price.
  • 01:19:46
    So taking that shadow price, you uh let's say, plug
  • 01:19:51
    it into the LMP calculation that we went over in, in
  • 01:19:54
    the first slide. And again, if we're in a scarcity
  • 01:19:57
    situation, you have a $5001 shadow price uh cap for
  • 01:20:02
    demand, a uh 25% shift factor and then you have our
  • 01:20:08
    new shadow price of $20,322. You do that calculation
  • 01:20:13
    you come up with a negative 100. And I think that's
  • 01:20:17
    right where we want to be for SCED to manage this constraint
  • 01:20:21
    you want to push that resource to its LSL as much as
  • 01:20:26
    possible to manage it and, and, and, and that's exactly
  • 01:20:29
    what, what would happen for that resource. Um So uh
  • 01:20:33
    that's the calculation. Um That's what we're proposing
  • 01:20:37
    uh for determining a new shadow price cap for an Iowa
  • 01:20:41
    Um I will remind folks this doesn't mean that the shadow
  • 01:20:44
    price will be $20,000 in all scenarios, this is a cap
  • 01:20:49
    value. So really, it's only gonna hit this in scarcity
  • 01:20:53
    conditions the rest of the time it should be, you know
  • 01:20:56
    guys that we, we, we would normally see today. Um So
  • 01:21:00
    again, I think this, this provides extra benefit to
  • 01:21:05
    the ERCOT control room. It gives them um uh the better
  • 01:21:10
    capability of managing this constraint. Um It's, it's
  • 01:21:14
    it's more transparent. The the calculation itself is
  • 01:21:18
    in the NPRR. So we're trying to be as transparent
  • 01:21:21
    as possible from that perspective. Um And um I think
  • 01:21:25
    this, this, this is definitely would be a helpful tool
  • 01:21:31
    in the control rooms toolbox going into the summer
  • 01:21:34
    to help manage to manage this constraint. But I think
  • 01:21:37
    that is all I have if there's there's any questions
  • 01:21:42
    Thank you, Freddie. Yes, we do have a cue, Eric Goff
  • 01:21:48
    Um If we can go back to the language
  • 01:21:54
    and the uh NPRR and the NPRR that Brian
  • 01:21:58
    raised a concern with. So um I think we have to balance
  • 01:22:04
    two things if we were to modify this paragraph. One
  • 01:22:07
    is that ERCOT needs to get this in place for this summer
  • 01:22:11
    and two is there might be a subsequent change that
  • 01:22:15
    could be communicated with very little notice. So I
  • 01:22:20
    wonder if we could include language such as um data
  • 01:22:25
    prices become effective. Um We will communicate through
  • 01:22:30
    a market notice and become a factor 30 days after the
  • 01:22:32
    market notice date um and by striking prior to uh sorry
  • 01:22:40
    sorry. So uh through a market notice um
  • 01:22:47
    comma and become effective 30 days after the market
  • 01:22:50
    notice date
  • 01:22:53
    rather than saying prior to becoming effective.
  • 01:22:58
    Yeah, I thought we had language in there that the shadow
  • 01:23:02
    price value would become effective upon uh market notice
  • 01:23:08
    date, yeah, upon the market notice date. And so you're
  • 01:23:11
    saying uh to become effective 30 days ahead, I'm saying
  • 01:23:16
    that yeah, it become 30 days after the market notice
  • 01:23:20
    date after the market or Bob Whitmire could say not
  • 01:23:23
    less than 30 days. That's a good point, Bob. But then
  • 01:23:27
    I think there's one caveat here, which is, I don't
  • 01:23:30
    know if that gives us enough time for this summer in
  • 01:23:32
    particular. So maybe we have to be annoying because
  • 01:23:35
    it was like um
  • 01:23:39
    after a day, there's a, there's a 30 day notice
  • 01:23:45
    and I apologize. I have actually have to drop in a
  • 01:23:47
    few minutes so I can't participate in editing on the
  • 01:23:50
    fly with y'all. Yeah. So I mean, I definitely open
  • 01:23:53
    to any suggestion changes. I mean, we can, we can work
  • 01:23:56
    on some, some language between now and in TAC if that's
  • 01:23:59
    if that's the desire or, or even um you know, after
  • 01:24:05
    summer, we can, we can work on improving the language
  • 01:24:07
    if, if um if, if, if that makes it a little bit
  • 01:24:11
    easier for the summer, but definitely open to that
  • 01:24:13
    as well.
  • 01:24:15
    Box or gray box. The language. Yeah. Right. Eric. Eric
  • 01:24:20
    would it work to have? And we, again, we can, we can
  • 01:24:23
    work this up as comments to TAC? But would it work
  • 01:24:25
    if for this paragraph that we're debating, you've got
  • 01:24:27
    the current version of the language that would be getting
  • 01:24:30
    in as soon as we can to get it done below it
  • 01:24:33
    we drop in a gray box with an effective date of whatever
  • 01:24:36
    once we're safely past the summer, that would then
  • 01:24:39
    replace that paragraph with whatever lead time notice
  • 01:24:41
    y'all wanted of. Yeah, you know today November 1st
  • 01:24:45
    we would replace that with language that says market
  • 01:24:47
    notice. No, at least 30 days prior blah, blah, blah
  • 01:24:51
    That way you'd get both.
  • 01:24:54
    That sounds reasonable.
  • 01:24:58
    Yeah, I I I'm definitely ok with that
  • 01:25:04
    Bill Barnes.
  • 01:25:06
    I was gonna make an attempt to what Eric just did.
  • 01:25:09
    So I uh that plan sounds good to me, Freddie. Just
  • 01:25:11
    real quick question that you're only applying the shadow
  • 01:25:14
    price cap to the herding resources. Are those with
  • 01:25:18
    positive shift factors explain? Um because obviously
  • 01:25:23
    the congestion component can result in prices above
  • 01:25:26
    cap. So how are we gonna keep the rest of the system
  • 01:25:29
    at 5000? Right? I mean, the the show price cap applies
  • 01:25:34
    to to, to all resources, so not necessary just hurting
  • 01:25:38
    but to helping as well. So it it would apply to helping
  • 01:25:43
    and hurting. I don't think there's a way to dis distinguish
  • 01:25:50
    Ok. So this could result in prices on the other side
  • 01:25:54
    of the constraint greatly above $5000. Yes. Ok, thanks
  • 01:26:02
    Thanks, Bill Seven. Yeah, Freddie, quick question.
  • 01:26:07
    Um Do we have any idea what the shadow price cap would
  • 01:26:10
    have had to been um in September to alleviate that
  • 01:26:13
    situation? We, we've done, we've done some calculations
  • 01:26:19
    Um, 15,000 between 15 and 25,000 is what is what we're
  • 01:26:24
    thinking depending on the situation. But um this this
  • 01:26:29
    calculation, I think if you plug it into a previous
  • 01:26:32
    scenario, it would resolve the constraint. OK? And
  • 01:26:35
    we're, and we're looking like 20,000 value and we're
  • 01:26:40
    looking at this language essentially, I haven't read
  • 01:26:42
    through it all myself yet, but only being activated
  • 01:26:45
    for that time period that you guys see there's constraint
  • 01:26:47
    issue or is it gonna be, it's like one hour, two hours
  • 01:26:50
    are we looking at? So normally the that that value
  • 01:26:55
    hits the cap. So in this case, the $20,000 in a scarcity
  • 01:26:59
    condition. And so when the system is struggling, it's
  • 01:27:03
    it's gonna push prices to the cap to try to get every
  • 01:27:06
    generator can available. So in normal conditions, when
  • 01:27:09
    we're not in scarcity, I wouldn't expect that shadow
  • 01:27:13
    price to be at the cap. So it be a fluctuating based
  • 01:27:15
    on identification. OK. And the dance between day ahead
  • 01:27:20
    and real time, the implementation of this we'd be looking
  • 01:27:23
    at situations prior to the day ahead. Market clearing
  • 01:27:26
    and shadow prices used there or is it just gonna be
  • 01:27:29
    in real time only? I believe it's used in uh forward
  • 01:27:33
    markets as well. I don't know Ryan, if you, if you
  • 01:27:35
    know that if that shadow price cap is also used in
  • 01:27:38
    the day ahead market as well,
  • 01:27:42
    I might have to just throw things out if, if Dave Maggio
  • 01:27:46
    is on, but I don't believe that it is.
  • 01:27:53
    And Dave, we see you in the queue. Do you want to
  • 01:27:56
    go ahead and respond to that? Yeah, yeah, that is exactly
  • 01:27:59
    why I was jumping the queue. Ryan Ryan is correct that
  • 01:28:01
    we have in part because of the voluntary nature and
  • 01:28:04
    the fact that we're not trying to meet the a load forecast
  • 01:28:07
    in the day ahead broadly, we have penalties that are
  • 01:28:09
    different. So the the penalties that we're talking
  • 01:28:11
    about only apply in the real time market. Thank you
  • 01:28:16
    Appreciate it. Thank you, Rosemary. Um Hi Freddie.
  • 01:28:21
    My question is similar to uh bills and Kins. So it
  • 01:28:26
    would be good for the market to see the range of um
  • 01:28:32
    the shadow price gap that you are thinking and um the
  • 01:28:36
    range of prices that can come out of this. Um
  • 01:28:42
    Can you remind me uh like there is a price floor of
  • 01:28:49
    minus 250 right? That is at the LMP or the DSPP
  • 01:28:55
    I forgot one of those, right? So, and so it won't be
  • 01:29:01
    affecting that much on the negative side, but it can
  • 01:29:04
    have significant impact on the positive side. Um The
  • 01:29:10
    the, and another question is, is this going to be applied
  • 01:29:15
    for all of the IROLs? And if so, how many IROLs do
  • 01:29:19
    we have?
  • 01:29:22
    So that's a good question. Um I guess multiple questions
  • 01:29:27
    but um o on the application piece, um I've gotten some
  • 01:29:31
    feedback on that and, and really in my mind, the intent
  • 01:29:35
    is to apply this to um Irls as needed. II, I don't
  • 01:29:41
    think it makes sense to increase the shadow price cap
  • 01:29:44
    for Irls that um we haven't had issue controlling in
  • 01:29:48
    in, in history. So um I think I can, one of the
  • 01:29:53
    things I can do is go back and, and, and, and make
  • 01:29:55
    that clarification. I have, I have some draft language
  • 01:29:59
    in place, but uh I do think it probably makes the most
  • 01:30:02
    sense to um uh increase if needed as needed. OK. So
  • 01:30:09
    um maybe the language needs to be changed to reflect
  • 01:30:13
    that. Then the other question is um so is the expectation
  • 01:30:19
    that you will change it, change the IROL based on uh
  • 01:30:24
    static study and keep it uh constant for some time
  • 01:30:31
    Or you're thinking that you will keep on changing it
  • 01:30:33
    every, every day. Uh No, it would be static and then
  • 01:30:37
    reviewed annually or as needed. OK. Reviewed annually
  • 01:30:42
    OK. So then the edits that, that Eric would Eric made
  • 01:30:48
    would give at least 30 day notice. Um Do you, do you
  • 01:30:53
    know uh do you remember what is the notice that is
  • 01:30:55
    given right now when the shadow price cap is changed
  • 01:31:00
    when the the threshold is met?
  • 01:31:05
    So currently, whenever there is a reduction in shadow
  • 01:31:08
    price cap or resolvable constraint, I don't dave or
  • 01:31:12
    ran, y'all know that I can, I can jump on that. So
  • 01:31:16
    when the, the, the criteria is first met for a SCED
  • 01:31:20
    I'm sorry for a constraint, being irresolvable SCED
  • 01:31:23
    that effectively happens as soon as practicable. Um
  • 01:31:26
    So there, there is not necessarily a delay in the application
  • 01:31:31
    in that particular circumstance. There is, however
  • 01:31:34
    as part of the annual review. So um it's kind of similar
  • 01:31:37
    to what Freddie was talking about with how it could
  • 01:31:40
    work in this circumstance. There is an annual review
  • 01:31:43
    of the constraints that have previously met the criteria
  • 01:31:48
    and to the degree we are making adjustments to that
  • 01:31:52
    There's actually a um a 30 minute or sorry, a 30 day
  • 01:31:56
    period that we wait for effectiveness to any changes
  • 01:32:01
    Um So there, there's a little bit of distinction of
  • 01:32:03
    when it first meets the criteria and subsequent updates
  • 01:32:06
    after the fact. OK. And actually I'm sorry, I did want
  • 01:32:11
    to, well, I did have a, a response back to something
  • 01:32:14
    else. You asked if you, if you hold on mind, I don't
  • 01:32:16
    want you to, I don't want to stop you, but please go
  • 01:32:18
    ahead but I may jump in still on something else.
  • 01:32:23
    Oh, yeah, thank you. I guess there's one thing I wanted
  • 01:32:24
    to make sure it was clear to folks you had talked about
  • 01:32:27
    um, the impact being limited on the price reduction
  • 01:32:30
    side and, and you pointed to the, um, to the, the pricing
  • 01:32:36
    floor that we have for the seven point prices that
  • 01:32:38
    what you said is, is accurate. I guess one thing that
  • 01:32:41
    I I wanted to make clear is I think one of the
  • 01:32:44
    circumstances when this is most likely to be effective
  • 01:32:48
    um or come into play is the case in which we're getting
  • 01:32:51
    into system scarcity when pricing is, is is relatively
  • 01:32:54
    high for like the system lambda type level. And so
  • 01:32:58
    what that may mean is the lowering of price could still
  • 01:33:01
    be fairly significant under this circumstance, particularly
  • 01:33:04
    if part of the driver here is to ensure that we are
  • 01:33:08
    potentially dispatching resources down that we aren't
  • 01:33:12
    otherwise doing because of the current uh shadow price
  • 01:33:14
    caps. So, so for example, um you know, just throwing
  • 01:33:19
    out some numbers maybe previously um with under the
  • 01:33:23
    current shadow price cap, the price maybe $2000 per
  • 01:33:28
    Megawatt hour when we're in scarcity. But also seeing
  • 01:33:30
    this constraint be violated under these new rules where
  • 01:33:35
    it was previously 2000, maybe now it's zero. So the
  • 01:33:39
    the change is significant, there is some level of protection
  • 01:33:44
    in terms of how low it will go because of the, the
  • 01:33:46
    price floor. So I just wanted to make sure that that
  • 01:33:48
    was clear for the, the whole group. Thank you. And
  • 01:33:51
    that's at the LMP or the DSPP
  • 01:33:56
    sorry, the price floor is applied at the, the settlement
  • 01:33:58
    point price. OK? That, that's a distinction of essentially
  • 01:34:02
    allowing the optimization to work harder and, and potentially
  • 01:34:07
    take the LMPs lower than that. But then there is
  • 01:34:09
    a cap on the settlement point price. OK. Uh I have
  • 01:34:13
    one more question. The example that you showed in the
  • 01:34:18
    presentation Freddie uh is that going to be different
  • 01:34:24
    or is that just an example, the the number of resources
  • 01:34:28
    you considered like the 800 um
  • 01:34:34
    uh like, yeah, the list of resources, is there a for
  • 01:34:41
    market participants to do analysis to see how much
  • 01:34:45
    is the pricing impact? Is my question? Or is it going
  • 01:34:47
    to be something that you decide?
  • 01:34:52
    Well, this is based off um actual instances when the
  • 01:34:58
    constraint was was was binding. So we would look at
  • 01:35:04
    a list of resources with their corresponding shift
  • 01:35:07
    factors to, to make that determination. So it it could
  • 01:35:11
    either be from, from a study that we conduct. So an
  • 01:35:13
    offline study or if it's from a real time scenario
  • 01:35:17
    we would, we would use the shift factors that were
  • 01:35:19
    calculated based on that, that particular scenario
  • 01:35:23
    And then, yeah. OK. And what uh for, for this scenario
  • 01:35:31
    this is this the value that you are going to use or
  • 01:35:37
    So the, these are, these are fictitious numbers that
  • 01:35:40
    II I plugged in but just to demonstrate how we would
  • 01:35:43
    would calculate that value. OK. Um So for the South
  • 01:35:49
    Texas constraint, can you bring this analysis for tact
  • 01:35:54
    Then I don't know if I can show that in a public
  • 01:36:00
    forum showing all the resource shift factors for this
  • 01:36:03
    particular constraint. Um Or like how much is the pricing
  • 01:36:08
    impact? What's the uh shadow price and all those or
  • 01:36:12
    is that how would you make it available? So what I
  • 01:36:17
    can do is if we can go back and do the actual
  • 01:36:22
    calculation based on actual sh factors and, and bring
  • 01:36:25
    back what that shadow price cap would be and, and the
  • 01:36:28
    price range for,
  • 01:36:32
    I think that should be easy. Ok. Ok. Thanks. Sure.
  • 01:36:38
    Thanks for asking. Brian.
  • 01:36:46
    Brian. Yeah, I didn't know. Right. I I was just
  • 01:36:51
    gonna say we'll file some comments and notice that
  • 01:36:56
    Ok, Steve Brady.
  • 01:37:00
    Yeah, this is in response to Bill Barnes questions
  • 01:37:04
    Just fy I with the RFP for capacity last night that
  • 01:37:09
    ERCOT filed, they filed a set of helping shift factors
  • 01:37:14
    um that that there are some higher helping shift factors
  • 01:37:19
    in say Bear County, I think 17% was the highest I saw
  • 01:37:24
    But outside of stuff really close to the north end
  • 01:37:29
    of that constraint, uh generally like 4% helping shift
  • 01:37:33
    factor. So if you take 4%. You multiply it by this
  • 01:37:36
    20,000 you'll get like $800. I hope I did my math.
  • 01:37:40
    Right. That would be embarrassing if I did that wrong
  • 01:37:43
    Um, so that, that's the, uh, you know, in, in most
  • 01:37:47
    places that's the sort of the maximum that you'd see
  • 01:37:50
    the, the price over the 5000.
  • 01:37:54
    Good point. Thank you, Steve Mark.
  • 01:37:59
    Thank you. I, I just wanna make sure I understood properly
  • 01:38:03
    your response in the discussion you're having with
  • 01:38:05
    Kevin about 12 minutes ago. Um I understood you to
  • 01:38:10
    say that had this NPRR been in place last summer
  • 01:38:15
    then on September 6th and or or other similar days
  • 01:38:20
    the uh impact of having the shadow price caps in place
  • 01:38:26
    would have been that there, we would have avoided the
  • 01:38:31
    need for the HDL overrides. Is that a correct interpretation
  • 01:38:35
    of, is that correct? And is that a correct understanding
  • 01:38:39
    of what you said before? That's the intent is for this
  • 01:38:42
    to replace the need to do HDO overrides whether that's
  • 01:38:46
    enough to resolve the constraint entirely? I don't
  • 01:38:51
    know, but this really is intended to replace the need
  • 01:38:54
    for a rides.
  • 01:38:58
    Mhm.
  • 01:39:01
    Ok.
  • 01:39:04
    Bill. I believe you are out of the queue if I'm in
  • 01:39:08
    I was gonna ask for uh helping shift factor ranges
  • 01:39:11
    to get a sense on the price impact. So essentially
  • 01:39:13
    what Steve brought up. But uh I agree with what resume
  • 01:39:16
    was saying and that that information that she requested
  • 01:39:19
    would be very helpful prior to TACs. So.
  • 01:39:23
    Ok, thank you. Ok. So we have an MD Q.
  • 01:39:29
    We have already granted urgency on this. Is there
  • 01:39:37
    what is the will of the group do we would, is there
  • 01:39:40
    interest in motion to approve or we can leave it here
  • 01:39:49
    Katie,
  • 01:39:54
    I would make a motion to approve. I do understand what
  • 01:39:57
    you know, Brian wanted to work on the language and
  • 01:39:58
    Eric's working with him on that. So, but with that
  • 01:40:01
    I would still make a motion to approve, knowing that
  • 01:40:02
    they can work on that before TAC.
  • 01:40:05
    But the desktop edits. OK. So we have uh a motion by
  • 01:40:10
    Katie to approve with the desktop edits that were made
  • 01:40:14
    today and we have a second by second unless we can
  • 01:40:17
    put it on the combo ballot. Any need for an individual
  • 01:40:21
    bo
  • 01:40:23
    everybody's OK.
  • 01:40:26
    Corey's giving me a nod. I think Ryan Sams at least
  • 01:40:29
    was gonna be a no on this one, right? I call him
  • 01:40:33
    out but foreign,
  • 01:40:37
    you know. OK. Yeah. Individual ballot, individual ballot
  • 01:40:42
    OK? No worries. Didn't me to call you out. Thank you
  • 01:40:46
    No, no. And just to just to recap and I'll run through
  • 01:40:49
    that quickly. So dropping in this gray box is to achieve
  • 01:40:52
    what Eric was talking about. So the initial language
  • 01:40:55
    won't have a time limit on the market notice. But then
  • 01:40:58
    once we've got this in place, gotten through a couple
  • 01:41:01
    of months, then we can replace that language. I just
  • 01:41:04
    dropped into December 1st just in alignment with where
  • 01:41:07
    the board and PUC meetings are going. So I know we'll
  • 01:41:10
    have a whole bunch of stuff going in December 1st.
  • 01:41:13
    So if everyone's ok with December 1st, I'd really like
  • 01:41:15
    to do that one.
  • 01:41:17
    I see some nods. Thank you. Ok, Corey. I think we're
  • 01:41:21
    good. Ok. Now let me actually get a ballot for you
  • 01:42:49
    Ok. So the official motion since we've already waived
  • 01:42:52
    notice, we've already granted an urgent status. So
  • 01:42:53
    we would be recommending approval of 1230 as revised
  • 01:42:56
    by PRS which were the desktop edits. We just showed
  • 01:42:59
    and forward it to TAC with the 57 no impact IA
  • 01:43:05
    ok. Just good.
  • 01:43:10
    So on that motion, we will start up with the consumers
  • 01:43:13
    with Eric.
  • 01:43:21
    He said he won't be able to look coming and going at
  • 01:43:24
    the moment. How about Nabaraj? Yes.
  • 01:43:30
    Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Ryan. Yes. Thank you on
  • 01:43:36
    to our CoOps Lucas.
  • 01:43:40
    Yes. Thank you Blake. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank you
  • 01:43:45
    on our independent generators, Andy. Abstain. Thank
  • 01:43:48
    you. Thank you, Caitlin. Abstain. Thank you.
  • 01:43:56
    Thank you,
  • 01:44:00
    Katie. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Bryan Sams abstained
  • 01:44:07
    Ok. Thank you, Carrie. Abstain.
  • 01:44:11
    Thank you Bob Helton. Abstain. Thank you, sir. Thank
  • 01:44:16
    you sir, Alex. Abstein. Thank you
  • 01:44:23
    holding out hope for David Mindham.
  • 01:44:26
    Mhm.
  • 01:44:28
    Moving on to our IPMs John
  • 01:44:32
    staying. Ok. Thank you, Resmi abstain. Ok. Ian
  • 01:44:40
    Thank you, Kevin abstain. Thank you
  • 01:44:46
    on to the IRPs Bill. Yes, thank you, Erin. Yes. Thank
  • 01:44:52
    you on to the IOUs Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer
  • 01:44:59
    abstain.
  • 01:45:01
    Thank you, Jim. Yes. Thank you. Thank you on the Munis
  • 01:45:05
    Diana
  • 01:45:07
    abstain. Thank you, Ashley. Stay. Thank you. Ok. Yes
  • 01:45:15
    Thank you. Cube
  • 01:45:20
    Motion carries unopposed 12 abstentions.
  • 01:45:26
    Ok. Thank you, Corey. Thank you everybody. It is 11:16
  • 01:45:31
    We still have quite a few items to go. So let's just
  • 01:45:34
    take a quick 10 minute break and we'll come back here
  • 01:45:38
    at 11:26.
  • 01:55:39
    All right, everybody. It's 1126. We still have a couple
  • 01:55:44
    of sections left to go. We can make our way back to
  • 01:55:48
    our seats. We'll get started.
  • Item 6 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote * denotes no impact
    01:55:52
    So for today, we have five items for budget consideration
  • Item 6.1 - NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations
    01:55:58
    The first item we have is 1198. This is sponsored by
  • 01:56:04
    EDF Renewables. This is the congestion mitigation using
  • 01:56:07
    topology reconfigurations. Last month, we recommended
  • 01:56:11
    approval of 1198 as amended by the March 8th LCRA
  • 01:56:17
    comments.
  • 01:56:19
    This was also um
  • 01:56:23
    has a cost impact of 50 to 80,000 with the annual recurring
  • 01:56:29
    O&M budget between 180,000 and 220,000 in an
  • 01:56:33
    estimated project duration of 4 to 7 months.
  • 01:56:44
    Do we have any appetite for a motion to approve? Do
  • 01:56:49
    we think that this can go on a combo ballot or does
  • 01:56:52
    anybody need to have uh a abstain or vote on 1198 Katie
  • 01:57:00
    Uh I'm happy to make the motion but we see if we
  • 01:57:03
    could do a combo. So I don't have to retract my motion
  • 01:57:05
    OK? Perfect. All right. Let's put this one in
  • 01:57:11
    separate. OK. So we will do an individual. So we have
  • 01:57:19
    so you need my motion and so we need a, we have
  • 01:57:21
    a motion by Katie Rich. Do we have a second?
  • 01:57:25
    Blake? Thank you, Blake. Hold for a second. So the
  • 01:57:30
    motion is to endorse them forward to TAC the April
  • 01:57:33
    5th PRS report in the April 30th IA with a
  • 01:57:36
    recommended priority of 2025 and a rank of 4520.
  • 01:57:44
    All right, Corey, I think we're ready. All right. Hold
  • 01:57:48
    on just real quick, Rosie. Did you have a question
  • 01:57:50
    on the motion? Oh, I, I just had a question on this
  • 01:57:55
    NPRR does this imply that if there's a constraint
  • 01:57:59
    that has a um accumulated impact of $1 million congestion
  • 01:58:06
    medication plan will automatically be developed?
  • 01:58:12
    See if Alex wants to Alex. Are you available? Yes,
  • 01:58:15
    please go ahead. Alex. I am here. Hi. Thank you for
  • 01:58:19
    the question. That is one of the guard rails, but it
  • 01:58:24
    does not mean that it would automatically be developed
  • 01:58:27
    Um There is the option for Burt to be, to be one
  • 01:58:33
    of the um to, to propose these as well, so they might
  • 01:58:37
    identify something. Um But there are many other guard
  • 01:58:41
    rails in there that could potentially um one they had
  • 01:58:45
    to be proposed and there are opportunities if for affected
  • 01:58:50
    TOs and generators to say no, there are uh the guard
  • 01:58:55
    rails around not impacting negatively reliability.
  • 01:59:01
    So there are many Garris that in a process and comment
  • 01:59:05
    periods and um additional, you know, additional edits
  • 01:59:10
    that were made to promote market transparency so that
  • 01:59:13
    everyone can see if these are being considered and
  • 01:59:16
    chime in. So I wouldn't say that it, that there's anything
  • 01:59:20
    automatic here. It's gonna be a pretty manual process
  • 01:59:22
    and I think that's why we kind is asking for additional
  • 01:59:25
    staff. Um I do think that the savings the the million
  • 01:59:30
    dollar savings that would be required for something
  • 01:59:32
    to be approved does definitely uh validate, you know
  • 01:59:37
    this relatively small cost impact. But um does that
  • 01:59:44
    does that answer your question? Yeah, and, and it is
  • 01:59:47
    sorry, is that over uh some time frame or uh sorry
  • 01:59:53
    I was not involved with this discussion. The savings
  • 01:59:57
    are for or an or annual savings? Ok, thanks.
  • 02:00:04
    Ok, Rosie, are you good? Thank you, Alex. That's right
  • 02:00:10
    Yeah, I just like to just like to add that. Uh we
  • 02:00:14
    are recommending that this is most likely a 2025 project
  • 02:00:17
    because of the additional FTE needed. So, ok. So do
  • 02:00:23
    we need to modify
  • 02:00:27
    are priority in rank?
  • 02:00:32
    No? Ok. It takes in that, takes that into account.
  • 02:00:35
    Perfect. Thank you. Sean that FTE is it gonna end up
  • 02:00:41
    being one of those FTEs that takes five years to get
  • 02:00:44
    Do you think like that one we had several years back
  • 02:00:47
    or is it gonna be fairly quick?
  • 02:00:52
    Uh, good question, I guess it depends on, you know
  • 02:00:58
    with the candidate pool out there and things like that
  • 02:01:01
    I don't think it's our intent to, to, uh, take any
  • 02:01:05
    longer than needed for this. But,
  • 02:01:08
    ok, Alex, I see you in the queue and then Andy if
  • 02:01:11
    you wanted to add, yeah, I did. Uh Thank you again
  • 02:01:15
    I did and I Troy, I appreciate your, I noted your presentation
  • 02:01:19
    earlier mentioning this and that there would be some
  • 02:01:22
    months of, of implementation time. Um I, I do know
  • 02:01:26
    that many stakeholders are, are very um interested
  • 02:01:32
    in getting this. You know, we started as soon as possible
  • 02:01:35
    I wonder if there is any way to,
  • 02:01:39
    to pilot it or limit, you know, maybe one at a time
  • 02:01:43
    or something to pick, pick, pick the worst offenders
  • 02:01:46
    and go forward with that or does it need to be, there
  • 02:01:50
    will be, will be an established start date. Um, sometime
  • 02:01:54
    next year.
  • 02:01:57
    I think the norm would be we, you know, exercise our
  • 02:02:02
    right to move things as quickly as we think they need
  • 02:02:05
    to be. So in many ways, the priority is an estimate
  • 02:02:09
    and if, if we are able to move quicker and it makes
  • 02:02:14
    sense to, I think we can. So it's not a limiting factor
  • 02:02:17
    It's more of a, in a ball park in the timeline. So
  • 02:02:23
    unless folks here would prefer that we adjust back
  • 02:02:26
    to 2024. Yeah, Troy, I'd like to weigh in on that and
  • 02:02:31
    I think this goes back to the aging projects list and
  • 02:02:34
    you know, certainly this is an important NPRR and
  • 02:02:37
    you know, I'm supportive of it, but we also have a
  • 02:02:40
    laundry list of other approved NPRRs on there. And
  • 02:02:43
    so getting back to the question about the 2025 ranking
  • 02:02:47
    are you at least initially at the onset slotting that
  • 02:02:50
    at the end of the already approved list as it impacts
  • 02:02:54
    the I in this bucket. And then it can be at that
  • 02:02:59
    point where we have the conversation about where this
  • 02:03:02
    NPRR sits in the priority of all the other approved
  • 02:03:05
    NPRRs and the staffing required specifically to implement
  • 02:03:09
    that. I'd say that's a fair way to characterize it
  • 02:03:12
    However, you know, as we look at the, the details we
  • 02:03:16
    have behind the I A that you see if, if the folks
  • 02:03:19
    needed to deliver this are not engaged in a bunch of
  • 02:03:23
    other in-flight things, then it can be accelerated
  • 02:03:27
    up the list, you know, without harming anything else
  • 02:03:30
    So we, we look at that, yeah, I think that's the right
  • 02:03:33
    approach Troy and, and, but you know, I do wanna be
  • 02:03:36
    mindful that if the staff is overlapping with other
  • 02:03:39
    approved NPRRs that we consider that here as well
  • 02:03:42
    Thank you,
  • 02:03:45
    Mark.
  • 02:03:47
    Uh Thank you. I just wanted to um you know, second
  • 02:03:52
    uh Alex comments, I mean, this is a really important
  • 02:03:56
    uh measure for all genera. Uh My client is a thermal
  • 02:04:00
    generator that could really benefit from this and really
  • 02:04:03
    benefit the system for this and just wanted to just
  • 02:04:07
    add, you know, that awareness that this is something
  • 02:04:10
    that's hugely important doesn't, as I understand it
  • 02:04:14
    requires system changes, it does require some staff
  • 02:04:16
    time and we certainly understand that. And we're certainly
  • 02:04:18
    those of us who are looking at taking advantage of
  • 02:04:20
    this measure will absolutely do everything we can to
  • 02:04:23
    make things as easy as possible for all involved. So
  • 02:04:27
    anyway, I just, you know, whatever we can do to get
  • 02:04:29
    this, make this available as soon as possible, at least
  • 02:04:32
    have to be able to have that discussion as soon as
  • 02:04:35
    possible. Um I would ask for that to be possible. Thank
  • 02:04:38
    you. Thank you, Mark. OK. We have an empty queue, anybody
  • 02:04:45
    else before we go back to the ballot?
  • 02:04:51
    Ok, Corey, I think we might be ready now.
  • 02:04:55
    All right.
  • 02:04:58
    Talk to about,
  • 02:05:02
    ok, on the motion to endorse and forward TAC the April
  • 02:05:05
    PRS report and the IA that we just reviewed with
  • 02:05:07
    the recommended priority of 2025 and rank of 4520.
  • 02:05:12
    We will start up with the consumers. Uh Yes, go see
  • 02:05:16
    Eric back. Thank you. Welcome back,
  • 02:05:20
    Nabaraj. Yes. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Ryan. Yes. Thank
  • 02:05:28
    you on to our co ops Lucas abstain. Ok. Thank you,
  • 02:05:33
    Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank you. And our
  • 02:05:37
    independent generators, Andy. Yes. Thank you. Thank
  • 02:05:40
    you, Caitlin.
  • 02:05:45
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:05:48
    Thank you, Kaitlyn Katie. Yes. Thank you, Brian. Ok
  • 02:05:55
    I'm sorry, Brian. Was that an abstain? It is? Yes,
  • 02:05:58
    it is. Thank you.
  • 02:06:01
    Uh Carrie. Yes. Thank you, Bob Hilton
  • 02:06:08
    lost bulb on this one,
  • 02:06:12
    Alex. Yes, thank you.
  • 02:06:17
    Check for Dave Mendum Nick
  • 02:06:21
    on to our IPMs John. Thank you, Reshmi. Yes, thank
  • 02:06:27
    you, Ian. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you on to our
  • 02:06:33
    Iras Bill. Yes. Thank you, Aaron. Yes. Thank you on
  • 02:06:40
    our IO us, Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer. Yes
  • 02:06:45
    Thank you, Jim Stain. Ok. Thank you on to the Muni
  • 02:06:51
    Diana. Yes. Thank you, Ashley. Yes. Thank you. And
  • 02:06:57
    Fei Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:07:01
    Motion carries three abstentions.
  • 02:07:06
    Thank you everybody. Thank you, Corey.
  • 02:07:12
    Ok. So the rest of section six all come to us from
  • 02:07:19
    ERCOT. We are looking at the cost for all of these
  • Item 6.2 - NPRR1218, REC Program Changes Per P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.173, Renewable Energy Credit Program
    02:07:24
    So 1218 is the right program changes per the commission
  • 02:07:29
    substantive rules. Last month, we recommended approval
  • 02:07:34
    as amended by the April 4th reliant comments and as
  • 02:07:37
    revised by PRS.
  • 02:07:41
    Let's see, there's no cost on that. Let's see a less
  • 02:07:45
    than 20 IA thank you, which would be absorbed by the
  • 02:07:48
    O&M budget for the affected departments. No project
  • 02:07:51
    required and could take effect within 2 to 3 months
  • Item 6.3 - NPRR1220, Market Restart Approval Process Modifications*
    02:07:54
    following the commission's approval. 1220 last month
  • 02:07:58
    we voted unanimously to recommend approval as submitted.
  • Item 6.4 - NPRR1222, Public Utility Commission of Texas Approval of the Methodology for Determining Ancillary Service Requirements*
    02:08:02
    1222 Last month, we voted unanimously to recommend
  • 02:08:06
    approval as submitted.
  • Item 6.5 - NPRR1223, Addition of TA Contact Information Into TDSP Application Form*
    02:08:11
    And then on 1223 also voted unanimously to recommend
  • 02:08:15
    approval as submitted. Anybody have issues with including
  • 02:08:20
    all of these to recommend approval for 1218, 1220 1222
  • 02:08:26
    and 1223 on the combo ballot. If anybody needs to abstain
  • 02:08:32
    or individual though, let me know.
  • 02:08:35
    Ok, like we can out those. I've got one minor tweak
  • 02:08:40
    on 1223 just uh cosmetic one As 1223 has been moving
  • 02:08:46
    through the process. Uh NPRR1206, I believe it was
  • 02:08:50
    just crossed the finish line. Effective May 1st that
  • 02:08:53
    removed several fields from the TDSP form. So when
  • 02:08:57
    1223 was filed, it's and you can still see it here
  • 02:09:00
    because it's still got the old baseline until today's
  • 02:09:02
    PRS report. So we removed via 1206. These title and
  • 02:09:06
    address fields for your people. We don't need to physically
  • 02:09:10
    locate them, we need to be able to reach them. So all
  • 02:09:13
    of these fields have been removed in 1206. So we'd
  • 02:09:17
    like to make some companion desktop edits here today
  • 02:09:19
    to remove that same. We don't need your fax numbers
  • 02:09:22
    We don't need your addresses for these new fields that
  • 02:09:25
    1223 is adding. So if everyone would be OK, I'd love
  • 02:09:28
    to throw this on the combo ballot with its no impact
  • 02:09:30
    IA with the as revised by PRS with the desk
  • 02:09:34
    at. Yep. Any opposition to that? We all good. I think
  • 02:09:39
    we're OK with that question. Thank you all for your
  • 02:09:41
    flexibility as always.
  • 02:09:49
    Oh, I've got all four of those on the combo ballot. OK
  • Item 7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
    02:09:52
    thank you. Ok. So that takes us to the tabled items
  • 02:09:56
    at um that may be ready for a vote. I believe the
  • 02:10:00
    first one that may be ready is 12. I see 11, 1190
  • Item 7.5 - NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased NOIE Load Costs
    02:10:08
    This is from the joint sponsors earlier this month
  • 02:10:15
    WMS endorsed this as amended by the March 26 reliant
  • 02:10:19
    comments. There were three opposing votes from the
  • 02:10:22
    con um um from different segments and um this 1 may
  • 02:10:28
    need a stand alone ballot so we'll see what everybody's
  • 02:10:32
    um will is we could recommend approval as amended by
  • 02:10:37
    the reliant comments or um
  • 02:10:42
    if there's any other discussion. Yes, Eric. Uh I just
  • 02:10:47
    wanted to have one thing I, I wanted to point out this
  • 02:10:51
    title is specific to Nay noi cost and the recent WMS
  • 02:10:56
    change uh from had reliant comments that I think
  • 02:11:00
    would broaden it beyond just the no E cost. So I think
  • 02:11:04
    and I think reliant had comments that would remove
  • 02:11:06
    that. So I just wanted to highlight that we should
  • 02:11:08
    make that change. Good note, Eric, thank you. So, and
  • 02:11:13
    Eric's exactly right, the reliant comments in addition
  • 02:11:16
    to all the red lines to the protocols, also red line
  • 02:11:19
    the title to replace Noe with LSE and modify the description
  • 02:11:23
    So a motion today to recommend approval with the reliant
  • 02:11:27
    comments would achieve exactly what Eric laid out,
  • 02:11:29
    it would change the title moving forward.
  • 02:11:32
    ok?
  • 02:11:35
    Go ahead. Ok. It looks like we need a stand alone.
  • 02:11:39
    Um But on this, so
  • 02:11:45
    we need a motion and a second, Katie.
  • 02:11:50
    I'll make the motion to approve with reliant comments
  • 02:11:52
    Thank you, Katie motion by Katie second by Kevin. Ok. All
  • 02:11:58
    right. So we
  • 02:12:01
    have a motion to recommend approval of 1190 as amended
  • 02:12:04
    by the March 26 reliant comments.
  • 02:12:12
    Ok. On that motion, we will start up with consumers
  • 02:12:16
    with Eric. No,
  • 02:12:19
    thank you Nabaraj. No, thank you, Mark. Ok, Ryan. No.
  • 02:12:28
    OK. Thank you on to the CoOps Lucas. Yes. Thank you
  • 02:12:32
    Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Abstain. Thank you on to
  • 02:12:39
    our independent generators. Andy. Yes. Thank you. Thank
  • 02:12:42
    you, Caitlin.
  • 02:12:45
    I'm staying.
  • 02:12:47
    Thank you, Katie. Yes. Thank you. Thank you Bryan Sams
  • 02:12:53
    Thank you, Carrie. Abstain.
  • 02:12:57
    Thank you, Bob Helton. Ditto. Thank you, sir, abstain
  • 02:13:04
    It's rarely a bad idea to agree with Carrie. Alex. Abstain
  • 02:13:11
    Thank you.
  • 02:13:14
    Still see David Mindham moving on to our IPMs John
  • 02:13:20
    Abstain. Thank you. Resmi
  • 02:13:25
    abstain. Thanks.
  • 02:13:28
    Thank you, Ian. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you on to
  • 02:13:34
    our IREPs, Bill. Yes. Thank you, Aaron. Yes. Thank you
  • 02:13:41
    on IOUs Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer. Abstain.
  • 02:13:48
    Thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks, Corey. Thank you on to
  • 02:13:52
    our Munis Diana. Yes. Thank you, Ashley. Yes. Thank
  • 02:13:57
    you and Fei. Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:14:03
    Motion carries 85% for 14 and some change against eight
  • 02:14:07
    abstentions.
  • 02:14:17
    Ok. Thanks everybody. Next up we have. I think the
  • Item 7.9.1 - NPRR1215, Clarifications to the Day-Ahead Market (DAM
    02:14:23
    next one we might have is 1215. Energy-Only Offer Calculation) This is clarifications
  • 02:14:27
    to the day ahead. Market energy only offer calculations
  • 02:14:32
    sponsored to us by ERCOT. Last. Let's see. In February
  • 02:14:37
    we tabled this and referred it over to CFSG. There
  • 02:14:41
    have been a couple of comments since our April PRS
  • 02:14:45
    meeting. We had ERCOT comments on April 12th and then
  • 02:14:50
    on April 18th, CFSG endorsed uh with the ERCOT comments
  • 02:15:01
    I don't know if ERCOT wants to raise anything or?
  • 02:15:07
    Oh, sorry, I thought I thought this was gonna be on
  • 02:15:10
    the combo ballot, so I didn't. So I wasn't ready at
  • 02:15:12
    the mic here though. The um I would put this in the
  • 02:15:17
    category of clarification and as built in NPRR. So
  • 02:15:23
    there's some credit calculations done by the um DAM
  • 02:15:26
    in by the uh before the DAM is wrong, you know. Um
  • 02:15:31
    and there's some uh some questions came into the DAM
  • 02:15:35
    team about some of the details on how some of these
  • 02:15:38
    um what is considered and not considered when we're
  • 02:15:41
    when they're doing these uh building these um I'm forgetting
  • 02:15:46
    the name percentiles. Yeah, we're doing these some
  • 02:15:48
    percentiles. And so they came back with a clarification
  • 02:15:51
    or do we, do we, do we replace the negative with a
  • 02:15:54
    zero or do we throw it out that kind of thing? They
  • 02:15:56
    came in with some clarifications on how that is handled
  • 02:15:59
    and this is a part of the protocols. We don't really
  • 02:16:01
    look at a whole lot. And so once, but once everybody
  • 02:16:03
    started looking at them, we saw some other clarifications
  • 02:16:06
    Uh Shams brought up some formula clarifications that
  • 02:16:09
    he thought should be added. So ERCOT incorporated those
  • 02:16:12
    in our comments and then a couple of other places,
  • 02:16:15
    we made some as built corrections on um on similar
  • 02:16:20
    similar language on how some of these negatives and
  • 02:16:22
    whatnot are handled for these percentiles. And then
  • 02:16:25
    there was another parameter. I think it's called E
  • 02:16:27
    two where it looks like when there was an other binding
  • 02:16:32
    document of, of that defined these parameters. And
  • 02:16:36
    when those were moved into the protocols, the default
  • 02:16:39
    value of e2 being A zero was not added to the
  • 02:16:41
    protocols and said there was a formula and then it
  • 02:16:43
    was silent on the default value. So another avi changed
  • 02:16:47
    that was put in there as well. So uh yes, so I
  • 02:16:52
    I think this is an as built no, no policy change type
  • 02:16:55
    type language and um I have some credit guys on the
  • 02:16:59
    phone if, if you guys have more questions since here
  • 02:17:01
    I see you have a comment. Sorry, I think I jumped the
  • 02:17:05
    gun. I think a neuro pretty much addressed and addressed
  • 02:17:09
    what I was going to say and provide all the context
  • 02:17:12
    and the history related to this NPRR that's it. Ok
  • 02:17:17
    Thank you.
  • 02:17:21
    Ok. Unless there is a need for an individual ballot
  • 02:17:23
    or abstention, we can add this to the combo ballot
  • Item 7.9.2 - NPRR1216, Implementation of Emergency Pricing Program
    02:17:26
    as well. OK. And then the next item that may also be
  • 02:17:30
    good for our combo ballot is 1216 implementation of
  • 02:17:33
    the emergency pricing program. We had tabled and referred
  • 02:17:37
    this over to WMS and they unanimously endorsed as
  • 02:17:40
    amended by the April 17th ERCOT comments.
  • 02:17:45
    Unless there's any go ahead Katie. Um no opposition
  • 02:17:50
    to the combo ballot whatsoever. I just wanted to have
  • 02:17:52
    an opportunity to thank or cut staff again for incorporating
  • 02:17:55
    TCPAs comments. Thank you, Katie Eric. Uh combo is
  • 02:18:02
    fine but uh I just asked at WM si just like to
  • 02:18:06
    hear it again just in case there's a bigger audience
  • 02:18:09
    Um could ERCOT tell us that this is not including any
  • 02:18:13
    additional fixed or non variable cost that in the male
  • 02:18:17
    payment, I know you already gave that answer to Ws
  • 02:18:20
    I apologize for asking again.
  • 02:18:24
    Yeah, if I remember correctly, there is a sentence
  • 02:18:26
    explicitly stating that there is no fixed costs Ok
  • 02:18:31
    thank you. Ok. All right, Corey. So we can add those
  • 02:18:35
    1215 and 1216 to the combo ballot.
  • 02:18:44
    Ok. So next up, I feel like we should do like calisthenics
  • 02:18:47
    or something. We've got those guys. Ok. So the next
  • Item 7.9.6 - NPRR1224, ECRS Manual Deployment Triggers – URGENT - Nitika Mago
    02:18:50
    one that we have is 1224. This is the NPRR
  • 02:18:55
    that, um, last month we, we did um table it and it
  • 02:19:03
    has been discussed between uh, the last PRS and today
  • 02:19:07
    So at the TAC and I'll just kind of set it
  • 02:19:11
    up and then ERCOT is here if we have some general questions
  • 02:19:16
    and I know we've had some comments too. So I'll just
  • 02:19:19
    highlight the conversations of 1224 since our last
  • 02:19:23
    PRS meeting. Um TAC did talk about it and they ERCOT
  • 02:19:30
    did reiterate that they don't support making any changes
  • 02:19:32
    to the ECRS procurement methodology for the rest of
  • 02:19:35
    2024. ERCOT did clarify that 1224 was intended to be
  • 02:19:41
    a summer 2024 item only and they also did speak to
  • 02:19:47
    the fact that they are intending to file a future NPRR
  • 02:19:50
    that may be able to incorporate some of the additional
  • 02:19:54
    items that we may not be able to um to see in
  • 02:19:59
    the current 1224 language. Um There was also an ask
  • 02:20:05
    uh for some additional feedback or some look back study
  • 02:20:12
    to be able to justify the cost. Also um after pure
  • 02:20:17
    or excuse me, after TAC
  • 02:20:20
    this was raised but not for a substantive reason. But
  • 02:20:24
    one of, I think the other buckets that 1224 has also
  • 02:20:28
    had part of the conversation was procedurally how we
  • 02:20:32
    get this approved when it's approved and how we make
  • 02:20:34
    that happen. So, uh, Commissioner Cobos at the R&M
  • 02:20:38
    board, uh, did state and we may have different feelings
  • 02:20:43
    about this, but she did state that the commission could
  • 02:20:45
    waive their 30 day review period and allow the NPRR
  • 02:20:49
    to possibly go into effect in July instead of August
  • 02:20:53
    Um That doesn't necessarily mean that's the plan going
  • 02:20:55
    forward because we didn't hear anybody um speak to
  • 02:21:00
    that. So just as a procedural basis, we had some conversation
  • 02:21:04
    um at the cat board, we had some substantive conversation
  • 02:21:08
    at TAC. We did have two sets of comments by TCPA
  • 02:21:12
    that were filed. Um And I guess what we'll do is we'll
  • 02:21:16
    start with ERCOT. I don't know, nea or Jeff, if you all
  • 02:21:20
    wanna provide a high level, I know that y'all weren't
  • 02:21:23
    gonna answer or in anticipating a full review of it
  • 02:21:26
    And then we can start with the cue and uh start with
  • 02:21:29
    the comments and then start with the cue.
  • 02:21:37
    Hello everyone. This is Nitika Mago. So just to recap
  • 02:21:41
    NPRR1224 is uh proposing to create a new manual
  • 02:21:49
    trigger, uh that the control room may use to release
  • 02:21:54
    ECRS uh at the last conversation we had on this, there
  • 02:21:59
    was some request uh for running a sensitivity analysis
  • 02:22:03
    around using different uh values of uh power balance
  • 02:22:08
    penalty violation um at which uh uh the trigger may
  • 02:22:13
    be uh considered. So, in that regards, at least we
  • 02:22:16
    have posted a slide deck to today's PRS meeting page
  • 02:22:22
    uh which tests a variety of different endogen or Power
  • 02:22:27
    balance violations and a variety of different time
  • 02:22:29
    points and report back the first time when uh the those
  • 02:22:35
    combinations would have in the past uh indicated the
  • 02:22:39
    need to release uh the potential to release ECRS
  • 02:22:45
    Um And we've the slide deck that we have summarizes
  • 02:22:49
    from uh additional uh count of events where
  • 02:22:54
    we gain time uh compared to uh last summer when ECRS
  • 02:22:58
    was released or new days where ECRS could potentially
  • 02:23:02
    be released when it is not. And there is also a workbook
  • 02:23:06
    an Excel workbook that is included within the slide
  • 02:23:10
    deck that gets into the details of exactly when those
  • 02:23:13
    triggers would be met. I'll pause uh with just that
  • 02:23:16
    description if there are any questions on, on the slide
  • 02:23:19
    deck. Happy to take those. Thank you, Nitika. Ok, let's
  • 02:23:24
    start with the queue um Katie. Thank you. Thank you, Nitika
  • 02:23:29
    No questions on the slide deck. I did want to take
  • 02:23:31
    the time to go through um TCPAs April 30th comments
  • 02:23:36
    and just make a few points. Um And then at the outset
  • 02:23:41
    state that we were responding to some comments from
  • 02:23:45
    ERCOT staff, we don't want to misrepresent, but our
  • 02:23:48
    understanding is they are ok with our comments. So
  • 02:23:50
    let me lay out a few things that it does. So it
  • 02:23:54
    uh has an energy bid curve submitted by QSE by the
  • 02:23:58
    QSE for the capacity assigned to ECRS may not be less
  • 02:24:01
    than 1000. I would um point that out that it is manual
  • 02:24:06
    so that keeps the cost of the IA down. There's no
  • 02:24:09
    additional cost associated with that instead of the
  • 02:24:13
    trigger at uh 30 megawatts for the pound balance penalty
  • 02:24:17
    curve. It is now at uh 40 megawatts for the 10 consecutive
  • 02:24:21
    minutes and then when they are releasing um ECRS, ERCOT
  • 02:24:26
    can preserve some SCED dispatchable ECRS to ensure
  • 02:24:29
    that ERCOT has sufficient capacity that can respond
  • 02:24:32
    to help recover frequency. Um So that was added at
  • 02:24:36
    ERCOT request. And then big picture here. I just
  • 02:24:39
    want to say that we want to align these changes with
  • 02:24:43
    the market outcomes that we would expect under the
  • 02:24:45
    RTC with the Ancillary service demand curves. So um
  • 02:24:49
    with that, I know that there may be some other TCPA
  • 02:24:51
    members that want to chime in. But with that, I'd like
  • 02:24:53
    to make a motion to approve the TCPAs 430 comments
  • 02:24:59
    Thank you, Katie Mark Dreyfus.
  • 02:25:03
    Uh Thank you. Um We need to pause and see if there's
  • 02:25:07
    a second. Oh, sorry. Yes. Ok. So we have a motion by
  • 02:25:11
    Katie to recommend approval of 1224 as amended by the
  • 02:25:16
    April 30th 2024 TCPA comments. Do we have a second
  • 02:25:21
    Oh, resume in the chat?
  • 02:25:27
    Ok.
  • 02:25:30
    Ok. So thank you. Uh Many words have been said on this
  • 02:25:34
    proposed NPRR and I will not repeat any of those
  • 02:25:37
    I hope um I speaking for consumers, I, I think generally
  • 02:25:43
    though any consumers can of course speak for themselves
  • 02:25:46
    Um I think we are generally supportive of the NPRR
  • 02:25:49
    it's not a preferred outcome but given where we're
  • 02:25:52
    at, we support the NPRR. Um but we're not supportive
  • 02:25:56
    of the offer floors that are included in the TCPA
  • 02:26:00
    uh version. So we'll have to be voting against that
  • 02:26:03
    Unfortunately, I, I understand the notion that we're
  • 02:26:08
    trying to replicate uh the conditions of the real time
  • 02:26:13
    co optimization. But, but I don't really think that
  • 02:26:15
    works in this instance because we're starting from
  • 02:26:18
    a different baseline. In, in this baseline, we have
  • 02:26:22
    introduced a significant inefficiency in our market
  • 02:26:25
    and we would be imposing the offer floors given the
  • 02:26:28
    inefficiency condition. And that's not the case with
  • 02:26:31
    real time co optimization which would start with a
  • 02:26:33
    fresh baseline. So consumers uh cannot support that
  • 02:26:37
    aspect of the uh the motion that we're OK with the
  • 02:26:42
    the 40 Megawatt uh power balance penalty uh trigger
  • 02:26:47
    and the uh the holding back the, the resources for
  • 02:26:52
    frequency control. That's those are fine. Thank you
  • 02:26:55
    Thanks, Mark.
  • 02:26:57
    Yeah, thanks, Mark. This is Andy with consolation
  • 02:27:00
    and I just wanted to um Echo Katie's comments about
  • 02:27:05
    support for this NPRR I think just a level set, you
  • 02:27:08
    know, we, we, we certainly can see the impacts of,
  • 02:27:12
    of pricing outcomes in regards to ECRS and, and definitely
  • 02:27:16
    sympathize with a need for a manual trigger. Um However
  • 02:27:21
    as, as Katie laid out, we, we certainly don't wanna
  • 02:27:23
    over correct and um potentially have price suppression
  • 02:27:28
    in the, in the event that we over releases ECRS. And
  • 02:27:30
    so what TCPA intended to do was really try to strike
  • 02:27:34
    a balance with um identifying a manual trigger that
  • 02:27:38
    aligns with what ECRS would win. ECRS would be released
  • 02:27:43
    Uh specifically as we're looking towards uh real time
  • 02:27:46
    co optimization and the Ancillary service demand curves
  • 02:27:50
    And in addition to that the price floor is intended
  • 02:27:52
    to keep uh ECRS that has been released from replicating
  • 02:27:57
    the pricing outcomes that we would experience in real
  • 02:28:00
    time co co optimization. So I hope we continue to move
  • 02:28:04
    in that effort to provide um some regulatory certainty
  • 02:28:09
    and and what pricing outcomes would be expected. Um
  • 02:28:12
    Certainly for this summer, as um we will be holistically
  • 02:28:18
    reviewing this whole Ancillary service methodology
  • 02:28:20
    in 2025. And so I did want to make a clear point
  • 02:28:23
    that we're only talking about this impact for 2024
  • 02:28:27
    and this entire process will go through a thorough
  • 02:28:30
    review here again. And then also with PUC oversight
  • 02:28:34
    for the 2025 methodology. So we would certainly have
  • 02:28:37
    an opportunity to look at all of these parameters again
  • 02:28:40
    So appreciate it.
  • 02:28:43
    Thank you, Andy Bob. Yeah, generally I don't like floors
  • 02:28:48
    because they create a plateau. If you notice with Non-Spin
  • 02:28:51
    we go up and then you get a long line and then
  • 02:28:53
    it shoots up kind of skews everything. But I think
  • 02:28:57
    at $1000 I think that's probably gonna be ok uh at
  • 02:29:01
    that level for now and then we're gonna of course,
  • 02:29:04
    review this later as you said. So I think that would
  • 02:29:08
    be ok if we try to go lower than that, that creates
  • 02:29:11
    other problems. I know someone had mentioned, but at
  • 02:29:13
    the same place Non-Spin is if you do that, it takes
  • 02:29:17
    this, this length makes it this length that you have
  • 02:29:21
    a plateau at 250. So that doesn't make a lot of sense
  • 02:29:24
    All right. Thank you. Thanks Bob Bill Barnes. Yeah
  • 02:29:29
    I'm similar to where Mark Dreyfus um kind of articulated
  • 02:29:34
    his concerns. We are good with um a lot of what TCPA
  • 02:29:38
    A proposed TCPA proposed but with the, the price for
  • 02:29:42
    the level of price war are concerned for seems a bit
  • 02:29:44
    high. Um I think we could get comfortable with the
  • 02:29:46
    price for but on the lower end of the scale. So we're
  • 02:29:49
    no on this.
  • 02:29:53
    Thank you, Bill Rosie.
  • 02:29:58
    Um I thank you. I just wanted to comment on a couple
  • 02:30:02
    of things that were raised. So as Andie and Katie said
  • 02:30:06
    this is approximating this uh proposal in a ECRS uh
  • 02:30:13
    proposal in 1224 for a ECRS is approximating RTC and
  • 02:30:19
    it is not in a different baseline RTC. The procurement
  • 02:30:25
    and release of is ECRS is based on the ASDC.
  • 02:30:34
    And by having a release based on an energy price and
  • 02:30:40
    putting a floor, we are almost approximating what the
  • 02:30:47
    release of ECRS happens during RTC. And the inefficiency
  • 02:30:53
    of reserving the capacity behind the hassle is removed
  • 02:30:57
    by that. So it is the same baseline. Um a little bit
  • 02:31:02
    additional information.
  • 02:31:05
    The ASDC that ERCOT used to analyze the pricing that
  • 02:31:11
    $1000 is based on that ERCOT analysis of the existing
  • 02:31:16
    ASDC that was approved in 2019. And we all have seen
  • 02:31:24
    RTC discussion RTC task force discussion where there
  • 02:31:29
    is a lot of concerns raised about the validity or whether
  • 02:31:35
    that currently approved ASDC is low or is reflecting
  • 02:31:41
    the current reality in the market because we had a
  • 02:31:45
    lot of different changes, conservative operation as
  • 02:31:48
    a first starting point plus to our requirement for
  • 02:31:52
    CRRs plus four hour requirement for Non-Spin plus change
  • 02:31:56
    in EEA level. There are so many different things that
  • 02:31:59
    happened after the 2019 that ideally to reflect the
  • 02:32:04
    new reality, the ADDC would be much, much higher. So
  • 02:32:08
    this pricing that is proposed in TCPE is not even reflecting
  • 02:32:14
    any of that. It is just based on what was already agreed
  • 02:32:21
    upon by PUCT and agreed upon by market participants
  • 02:32:24
    as what a appropriate value for these reserves is.
  • 02:32:30
    So putting it below that level is automatically undervaluing
  • 02:32:38
    these reserves. And as has been said in many different
  • 02:32:43
    meetings,
  • 02:32:46
    any investment in this market is based on revenue stacking
  • 02:32:51
    and the price signals that we create for these services
  • 02:32:57
    ensure that we get the right type of resources we need
  • 02:33:02
    So if we value, if we need a a to our product
  • 02:33:06
    and if we need ecr, then all of these services needs
  • 02:33:12
    to be appropriately valued. And if you are releasing
  • 02:33:16
    this capacity at a price lower than that, you are basically
  • 02:33:20
    saying that capacity is not valued and you are not
  • 02:33:26
    basically
  • 02:33:29
    reserving the capacity for the services that you are
  • 02:33:33
    procuring.
  • 02:33:35
    Ok, thanks.
  • 02:33:40
    OK. Thank you, Rosie Jeff. Why don't you go ahead and
  • 02:33:43
    then we will uh keep going with the cue. Uh Yeah, thank
  • 02:33:48
    you for the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it and
  • 02:33:50
    I apologize for the awkwardness. I wasn't sure the
  • 02:33:52
    process. So, so this is Jeff mcdonald, uh Director
  • 02:33:56
    of Market monitoring. So I just want to jump in and
  • 02:33:59
    make a comment. We have um
  • 02:34:02
    a few different comments to make on different parts
  • 02:34:04
    of this. And I think some of you have heard me comment
  • 02:34:06
    on aspects of it. Um I had intended to have written
  • 02:34:09
    comments for this meeting but wasn't able to get them
  • 02:34:12
    uh put together based on time. We will definitely have
  • 02:34:15
    comments for the, the TAC or, or whichever committee
  • 02:34:19
    meeting. Uh This aspect winds up at next. So I apologize
  • 02:34:23
    for that, but I did want to comment on the price floor
  • 02:34:26
    the offer price floor aspect. So we do and I, and I
  • 02:34:30
    think I've explained this before and it's probably
  • 02:34:32
    come out in, in other imm material. You know, we do
  • 02:34:35
    view um holding, you know, an excessive amount of capacity
  • 02:34:42
    and reserve and making it unavailable to the real time
  • 02:34:45
    energy market as uh inducing an artificial scarcity
  • 02:34:49
    condition and higher prices result from that are, are
  • 02:34:54
    therefore also artificial when I think of uh introducing
  • 02:34:58
    a price offer price floor in this circumstance. I don't
  • 02:35:04
    it's hard for me to see um the rationale for doing
  • 02:35:08
    that from my perspective, uh the basis price at which
  • 02:35:13
    you should evaluate where, where the post release price
  • 02:35:17
    ought to um hover around is the price that you see
  • 02:35:24
    prior to the scarcity condition starting to arise.
  • 02:35:29
    Um There's the deployment trigger that was discussed
  • 02:35:32
    earlier, you know, there's different uh under gen Megawatt
  • 02:35:35
    values and, and persistent or duration values that
  • 02:35:39
    are being considered. And uh you know, I thought the
  • 02:35:42
    sensitivity analysis that was put together was nice
  • 02:35:44
    uh and somewhat informative and definitely an intuitive
  • 02:35:47
    result. But, but in my view, the scarcity that is resulting
  • 02:35:52
    from keeping this capacity outside of the energy market
  • 02:35:55
    is producing an artificially high price already. So
  • 02:35:59
    putting a price uh offer price floor on the capacity
  • 02:36:03
    that's released is really trying to preserve some or
  • 02:36:07
    all of the artificially high price. The the the in
  • 02:36:11
    incremental price that was artificially produced by
  • 02:36:14
    um holding the capacity out. So in my view, uh I don't
  • 02:36:19
    I definitely don't agree with a $1000 price floor.
  • 02:36:22
    I can see because we have Non-Spin uh in SCED with
  • 02:36:30
    a offer price floor imposed, I can see having a offer
  • 02:36:34
    price floor imposed on released ECRS that is somewhat
  • 02:36:40
    higher than that that's imposed for for Non-Spin. But
  • 02:36:45
    beyond that, in, in my view and, and I'm not, this
  • 02:36:49
    is an argument for higher or lower prices. This is
  • 02:36:51
    an argument for prices that reflect an accurate amount
  • 02:36:54
    of scarcity, not an artificial amount of scarcity.
  • 02:36:57
    I could see a marginal price floor just to preserve
  • 02:37:00
    the quality, ordered um availability and SCED or dispatch
  • 02:37:04
    and scat of of the different reserves but not an offer
  • 02:37:08
    price floor that, that helps maintain a higher price
  • 02:37:12
    beyond that. So, so that was all I I want to add
  • 02:37:16
    I'm happy to answer questions. I don't think that's
  • 02:37:18
    the first time folks in here have heard me say that
  • 02:37:21
    Um But thank you for the opportunity. Absolutely. Don't
  • 02:37:26
    go far. We may have questions for you. Um Eric
  • 02:37:31
    uh Thank you. I think the comments from the imm are
  • 02:37:35
    uh persuasive. Um And it, I think I would boil down
  • 02:37:40
    Mark Dreyfus and Jeff's points. And in one way, which
  • 02:37:45
    is given the interaction between the large quantity
  • 02:37:51
    of ECRS procured and an offer floor. I don't know that
  • 02:37:55
    this would necessarily achieve the same outcomes that
  • 02:37:58
    we might expect in an efficient real time co optimized
  • 02:38:01
    market uh because of the excess procurement of ECRS
  • 02:38:06
    So while I'm sympathetic to the concept of an offer
  • 02:38:10
    floor in, in general, um you know, from just a pure
  • 02:38:13
    market design perspective, I think the circumstances
  • 02:38:16
    we find ourselves in mean that we, the level of success
  • 02:38:20
    by TCPA is, is not acceptable. Um I um I think
  • 02:38:25
    the comment to have something slightly above the no
  • 02:38:29
    spin form might be uh a good way to just make sure
  • 02:38:33
    that the SCED stack comes out correctly. But, you know
  • 02:38:37
    just given the large quantity, um we have the issue
  • 02:38:40
    that Bob Hilton raised and, and that puts us in a,
  • 02:38:43
    in a quandary um of, of having a big plateau at a
  • 02:38:46
    low price. Um So I, I don't think there's an easy answer
  • 02:38:50
    here. Um And for that reason, I think we need to consider
  • 02:38:55
    the offer floors in conjunction with the change in
  • 02:38:59
    the quantity. Um And um and just try to pass it without
  • 02:39:05
    the offer floors. So happy to talk about that. See
  • 02:39:08
    how this motion goes or what happens in TAC as well.
  • 02:39:11
    Thanks.
  • 02:39:13
    Thank you, Eric, Fei. Thank you uh Fei with Austin energy
  • 02:39:18
    I really appreciate the comments that all the commenters
  • 02:39:20
    have made and the imm perspective is definitely very
  • 02:39:24
    helpful. Um We also have concerns on the offer floor
  • 02:39:28
    Um First, we are not 100% sure that 1000 is the most
  • 02:39:32
    appropriate number. And um second of all, um I'm trying
  • 02:39:37
    to understand maybe ERCOT can speak to this um because
  • 02:39:41
    if the same resource is in the same hours, also offering
  • 02:39:44
    RRS regulation up and also ECRS. So the combined capacities
  • 02:39:49
    will be put behind that $1000 per Megawatt hour offer
  • 02:39:54
    for. So I'm trying to understand what would be the
  • 02:39:57
    impact on RRS and regulation up procurement pricing
  • 02:40:01
    and real time availability.
  • 02:40:10
    Go ahead.
  • 02:40:12
    Hey Fei, I can try to answer and maybe Dave Maggio is
  • 02:40:16
    on maybe if he wants to chime in. Let's see today.
  • 02:40:19
    Also in the non sins concept. Uh a similar requirement
  • 02:40:23
    exists that I if you are carrying the other ras, then
  • 02:40:28
    all of those get caught behind the floor. Uh So at
  • 02:40:31
    least uh the corollary uh with the ECRS is appropriate
  • 02:40:37
    Uh uh As far as uh uh I, I think your next
  • 02:40:41
    question was more towards how would the uh a prices
  • 02:40:45
    for the the other reserves change?
  • 02:40:49
    Yes. Yeah. Thank you for asking for that clarification
  • 02:40:52
    right? Um We, we understand that this paragraph is
  • 02:40:56
    trying to mimic the logic that is currently in place
  • 02:40:58
    for online Non-Spin. Uh However, the online Non-Spin
  • 02:41:01
    floor is only $75 here. We're talking about 1000. Yeah
  • 02:41:05
    So I'm trying to understand what would be the potential
  • 02:41:08
    impact on the maybe the clearing price or the real
  • 02:41:10
    time availability of RRS and regulation.
  • 02:41:16
    Well, uh maybe Dave, you may want to jump in, I'll
  • 02:41:20
    uh in my mind, uh this particular uh trigger uh and
  • 02:41:28
    the associated price flow that's coming in here is
  • 02:41:31
    attempting to ensure that the reserves that we procure
  • 02:41:36
    as a part of ECRS are preserved for the reasons they
  • 02:41:41
    were intended to be used. Uh When we start getting
  • 02:41:46
    into the type of situations we got into last summer
  • 02:41:49
    Now, more so from a real time perspective, uh
  • 02:41:54
    uh we are looking to forgo procure uh the, the reserves
  • 02:41:58
    uh so that they can be used for capacity um at an
  • 02:42:02
    appropriate uh a level of um system neck load or availability
  • 02:42:09
    conditions.
  • 02:42:12
    At least in those situations when IRRs is released
  • 02:42:16
    I would expect the uh the the system uh the available
  • 02:42:20
    headroom to be such that prices would be higher anyways
  • 02:42:24
    Um So I'm not uh I don't see uh a direct issue
  • 02:42:28
    but then I'm also gonna let Dave chime in and maybe
  • 02:42:30
    he can help answer some of your questions.
  • 02:42:36
    Yes, thank you. I, I guess is my, my immediate reaction
  • 02:42:39
    to the question is that I I'm not expecting any sort
  • 02:42:42
    of major impact to procurement and availability. So
  • 02:42:45
    procurement in the day ahead and availability in real
  • 02:42:47
    time uh to a large degree of course regulation up,
  • 02:42:51
    like regulation up always is behind the high an service
  • 02:42:55
    limit and response reserve is generally in the vast
  • 02:42:58
    majority of times already behind the high an service
  • 02:43:02
    limit. So this application of the ECRS offer floor
  • 02:43:07
    to those other services has relatively minimal impact
  • 02:43:12
    except for conditions when we're really getting in
  • 02:43:15
    into fairly deep levels of scarcity. So um anyway,
  • 02:43:18
    hopefully that's helpful. But II I just based on my
  • 02:43:22
    initial thought today, I don't see a direct impact
  • 02:43:24
    there.
  • 02:43:26
    Thank you.
  • 02:43:31
    OK, let's see, Katie.
  • 02:43:35
    Thanks. Um This question is more for Naka. I think
  • 02:43:38
    the explanation that you provided in response to face
  • 02:43:40
    question was was really helpful. But um in the comments
  • 02:43:44
    about there being this significant amount held behind
  • 02:43:47
    can you talk about how um this would be released in
  • 02:43:52
    the blocks? And everyone seemed to be ok with the fact
  • 02:43:55
    that some additional would be held for recovering from
  • 02:43:58
    frequency. Can. So can you just speak to that a little
  • 02:44:01
    bit about the deployment?
  • 02:44:06
    Uh I think you're uh wanting us to comment more so
  • 02:44:10
    on what the mechanics of how this trigger would work
  • 02:44:13
    in the control room. So, so as we mentioned earlier
  • 02:44:17
    to uh uh we, we will use this trigger to alert the
  • 02:44:21
    control room of situations wherein uh they should consider
  • 02:44:25
    releasing ECRS now, situations when this trigger shows
  • 02:44:29
    up can be vastly different. So the way we propose to
  • 02:44:33
    write the language was they would consider uh when
  • 02:44:35
    the, when they first see this come through, they would
  • 02:44:38
    consider releasing up to 500 megawatts. Uh and they
  • 02:44:43
    may want to start slow just depending on how the system
  • 02:44:46
    goes. But they will be targeting to release uh close
  • 02:44:49
    to that number and where they will watch to see how
  • 02:44:53
    the system reacts. Uh They don't want to unnecessarily
  • 02:44:55
    move the system around uh uh to uh to imme uh you
  • 02:45:01
    know, in a jerky manner, quote unquote, I'll use the
  • 02:45:05
    word loosely, but that's uh the up to there was to
  • 02:45:08
    give them uh uh some amount of room to take the situation
  • 02:45:14
    they are in and how they ee expect the uh the next
  • 02:45:18
    uh the amount of time to play out. Now. However, after
  • 02:45:23
    they have made the call to release, if the uh the,
  • 02:45:26
    the, the power balance constraint continues to be in
  • 02:45:30
    effect, they may consider releasing more um uh additional
  • 02:45:36
    megawatts of ECRS which is what is captured in the
  • 02:45:38
    second sentence. And that coy is highlighting on following
  • 02:45:42
    such an ECRS release if the violation remains at
  • 02:45:45
    least at that level or more or they may, they will
  • 02:45:48
    continue to release ECRS. Now, something uh that the
  • 02:45:52
    TCPA comments add is recognizing uh uh the uh recognizing
  • 02:45:58
    that ECRS is also procured for frequency recovery
  • 02:46:01
    So as much as possible, they will uh consider uh again
  • 02:46:07
    depending on how early this uh if you take summer afternoon
  • 02:46:10
    as an example, they may, they may be looking to consider
  • 02:46:14
    uh the potential of um a a frequency event needing
  • 02:46:18
    megawatts to recover. So this the follow on language
  • 02:46:21
    allows them um allows them to keep some megawatts in
  • 02:46:26
    their back pocket. However, uh uh however, as the statement
  • 02:46:30
    says, if the power balance remains, we will continue
  • 02:46:34
    releasing ECRS uh till it's completely released to
  • 02:46:37
    schedule B pause. See if that helps. Now, that really
  • 02:46:42
    helps me. My, my point was there's not an amount that
  • 02:46:44
    just a large amount that's just being held there. And
  • 02:46:47
    it also looks like there's sort of an operational versus
  • 02:46:50
    a price signal financial piece to this as well. So
  • 02:46:54
    I wanted her to make that clarification so that there
  • 02:46:56
    wasn't just the opinion that it was just some large
  • 02:46:59
    amount being held, it looks like it's strategically
  • 02:47:01
    being released when the trigger is met and when their
  • 02:47:04
    operational needs.
  • 02:47:07
    Thank you, Katie
  • 02:47:10
    Jennifer. Yes. Um I think we're largely supportive
  • 02:47:15
    of this. We're excited as rhythm to see um some balance
  • 02:47:20
    come through as a result of 1224. Um We also agree
  • 02:47:25
    with the imm that the floor seems um less effective
  • 02:47:31
    than no floor or a very low floor as Bill said.
  • 02:47:39
    Ok, thank you. Ok, so we have a empty queue.
  • 02:47:47
    Mhm. Ok.
  • 02:47:57
    All right, Corey, I think we are ready
  • 02:48:02
    one little bit of housekeeping that I side barred with
  • 02:48:04
    KD on the initial um the first set of tcap a comments
  • 02:48:09
    from 420 we're adding in a future system implementation
  • 02:48:13
    where ERCOT would be automatically setting the energy
  • 02:48:15
    offer curve coming through. In the 430 comments, you
  • 02:48:18
    can see here, they removed that requirement and they
  • 02:48:20
    referenced it up here in their comments that they were
  • 02:48:24
    expressly taking out that future system implementation
  • 02:48:27
    But in processing those comments, I neglected to remove
  • 02:48:30
    that from the revision description. So here what they
  • 02:48:33
    had added in was applicable when the 420 language was
  • 02:48:35
    there, the 430 comments striking that gray box means
  • 02:48:39
    we should have also stricken this last clause in this
  • 02:48:42
    sentence. So Naka caught that for us. Thank you very
  • 02:48:44
    much. So if Katie and the second are OK with this,
  • 02:48:46
    this would be the 430 TCPA comments as revised by
  • 02:48:50
    PRS just to strike this language in the description
  • 02:48:53
    that's no longer accurate. Yes, I agree with that.
  • 02:48:55
    OK.
  • 02:48:59
    All right. There's no comments or questions on that
  • 02:49:01
    I think we are good. All right. So we have a motion
  • 02:49:05
    to recommend approval up to 1224 as amended by the
  • 02:49:08
    April 30th TCPA comments as revised by PRS with the
  • 02:49:13
    A March 27th IA.
  • 02:49:22
    Ok. On this one, we will start up with the consumers
  • 02:49:25
    with Eric.
  • 02:49:27
    No,
  • 02:49:31
    in the right box. There we go, Nabaraj,
  • 02:49:34
    no.
  • 02:49:37
    Mark. Uh No, thank you, Corey. Thank you, sir Ryan
  • 02:49:42
    No, thank you on to our co ops Lucas of staying. Ok
  • 02:49:48
    Thank you, Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. It's thing
  • 02:49:55
    Ok. Thank you on to our independent generators. Andy
  • 02:49:58
    Yes, thanks, Corey. Thank you, Caitlin.
  • 02:50:02
    Yes. Thanks Coy. Thank you, Katie. Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:50:07
    Thank you Brian Sams. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Carrie.
  • 02:50:12
    Abstain.
  • 02:50:14
    Thank you, Bob Helton. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir, Alex
  • 02:50:20
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:50:24
    Check for David
  • 02:50:28
    on to our IPMs John. Yes. Thank you, Reshmi. Yes.
  • 02:50:33
    Thank you, Ian. Thank you, Kevin. Yes. Thank you. Yeah
  • 02:50:38
    on IREPs Bill. No. Thank you, Erin
  • 02:50:50
    Erin. When you still with us,
  • 02:50:57
    right on to our IOUs, Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark
  • 02:51:02
    Spencer. Yes. Thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks, Corey. Thank
  • 02:51:07
    you on to our Munis Diana. Abstein. Thank you, Ashley
  • 02:51:13
    saying thank you and Fei. Abstain. Thank you. Thank
  • 02:51:19
    you.
  • 02:51:23
    Motion carries two thirds in favor third against six
  • 02:51:27
    abstentions,
  • 02:51:32
    ok? Thank you everybody.
  • 02:51:38
    He says PRS isn't exciting. This is ok.
  • 02:51:47
    We are getting closer to the young guys.
  • 02:51:53
    Give Coumadin. Ok.
  • Item 8 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
    02:52:00
    All right. So we have two items under our new language
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 8.1 - NPRR1225, Exclusion of Lubbock Load from Securitization Charges
    02:52:03
    review. First up, we have 1225 that is coming to us
  • 02:52:07
    from ERCOT. This is the exclusion of Lubbock load from
  • 02:52:10
    securitization charges. Um Wanted to see if anyone
  • 02:52:17
    at, wanted to tee this up for us and give us a
  • 02:52:19
    high level overview.
  • 02:52:23
    Hi, Diana. This is DaVita with ERCOT. I'm happy to
  • 02:52:26
    tee this up and thanks for the opportunity to do so
  • 02:52:29
    Thank you.
  • 02:52:32
    So, when um Lubbock transitioned to retail competition
  • 02:52:36
    during that transition, questions rose as to whether
  • 02:52:40
    or not um customers that were still served by Lubbock
  • 02:52:43
    as TDSP would continue to be excluded from um
  • 02:52:48
    securitization charges. Th both those under subchapter
  • 02:52:51
    N and those under Subchapter N. ERCOT sought guidance
  • 02:52:56
    from the commission through two petitions for declaratory
  • 02:52:59
    order and the commission confirmed ERCOTs interpretation
  • 02:53:03
    that the Lubbock customers should continue to um have
  • 02:53:06
    their load excluded from securitization, uplift and
  • 02:53:10
    securitization default charges. So after the commission
  • 02:53:15
    issued those orders are caught immediately incorporated
  • 02:53:19
    Um that guidance in advance of the transition to competition
  • 02:53:23
    these NPRR uh this NPRR now codifies in
  • 02:53:28
    in the protocols, those changes and they're in sections
  • 02:53:31
    26 with respect to securitization default charges in
  • 02:53:35
    section 27 with respect to securitization uplift charges
  • 02:53:40
    um because those are two different entities and on
  • 02:53:42
    different basis, the, the exclusions are slightly different
  • 02:53:46
    but I, I think that's a good summarization of, of the
  • 02:53:49
    overview. And I'll note that we also have um others
  • 02:53:53
    at ERCOT who could speak to the particular settlement
  • 02:53:56
    changes if there are questions with respect to those
  • 02:53:59
    Thank you. Thanks Davida,
  • 02:54:02
    not saying any questions we could recommend approval
  • 02:54:08
    as submitted or we could table this. I'm seeing some
  • 02:54:12
    nodding of the heads for rec. Ok. Do we have a motion
  • 02:54:15
    or add it to the combo ballot combo? OK. Let's add
  • 02:54:19
    that 1225 to the combo ballot
  • Item 8.2 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
    02:54:24
    and then 1226 also comes to us from ERCOT. This is
  • 02:54:29
    creating a demand response monitor to assist market
  • 02:54:32
    participants and ERCOT operators. Um actually, excuse
  • 02:54:36
    me, it's coming from Floy, trust me, the ERCOT steel
  • 02:54:38
    mills um helping ERCOT operators making those judgments
  • 02:54:41
    of near future capacity needs.
  • 02:54:46
    Uh Thank you. Um at the large flexible load task force
  • 02:54:52
    meeting, we uh discussed the purpose of the demand
  • 02:55:00
    response monitor and essentially we have over 3000
  • 02:55:05
    megawatts already in service and the ERCOT operators
  • 02:55:11
    have very little tools to understand how they are reacting
  • 02:55:20
    After discussion, I had uh proposed in the meeting
  • 02:55:26
    that the uh aggregation of all of the responses from
  • 02:55:35
    loads for price response for CP response, other ERCOT
  • 02:55:42
    uh actions like conservation alerts, et cetera be monitored
  • 02:55:49
    And the l large flexible load task force thought that
  • 02:55:54
    disclosing that to market participants would be beneficial
  • 02:56:01
    to the entire market. As long as only the aggregate
  • 02:56:07
    was presented. And so this NPRR was drafted to show
  • 02:56:15
    the response characteristic in a graphical format of
  • 02:56:23
    load, excuse me of response megawatts versus current
  • 02:56:29
    LMP and on the grid. And uh
  • 02:56:36
    it was also briefly discussed at the demand side working
  • 02:56:42
    group who were uh also somewhat in favor of it. But
  • 02:56:48
    officially, they haven't been uh alluded to as of this
  • 02:56:54
    time. So I'll leave it open to group discussion here
  • 02:57:00
    or, or where this should go next. Thank you, Floyd
  • 02:57:06
    John.
  • 02:57:09
    Well, I have a lot of questions because, and so I do
  • 02:57:14
    think that it needs to be tabled and uh sent to um
  • 02:57:19
    and uh both ROS and uh
  • 02:57:25
    um WMS. But um and I will, my, after I say
  • 02:57:31
    something, I'll make a motion for that. But uh the
  • 02:57:37
    4-CP stuff is all done based on revenue meters and
  • 02:57:42
    I don't see how a monitor could actually monitor those
  • 02:57:47
    things and uh on how that happens. So I'm, I'm having
  • 02:57:54
    trouble with uh some of the concepts of actually how
  • 02:57:58
    meters work and how this can be done. But I, I know
  • 02:58:04
    I saw this and it's just, there's some ques, I have
  • 02:58:10
    a lot of questions on this. So I would like to send
  • 02:58:14
    it both to ROS and WMS and tablet. OK. So we
  • 02:58:19
    have a motion by John Vernel to table and refer to
  • 02:58:22
    ROS and WM si got a second by Bob.
  • 02:58:26
    So having a motion in a second for that. Meaning that
  • 02:58:28
    we can't put this on the combo ballot is that we can
  • 02:58:32
    put it on the combo ballot? Does anybody need an individual
  • 02:58:36
    or? No? No? OK. So this can I ask, is ROS chair
  • 02:58:40
    I'm I'm sorry. So right now was, it's been discussed
  • 02:58:44
    as a concept at LFLTF. It was discussed Monday at LFLTF
  • 02:58:49
    Is LFLTF done with their work on this and then if we're
  • 02:58:53
    going to send it to ROS, I'd like to know specifically
  • 02:58:56
    what you'd like ROS to look at. What I would like
  • 02:58:59
    Ross to look at is how these things are really gonna
  • 02:59:03
    be accomplished, which systems it, I mean, we can
  • 02:59:10
    verbalize this this way, but I don't see how it's gonna
  • 02:59:14
    actually be accomplished. So I'm not sure. And so and
  • 02:59:19
    Ross is kind of is, aren't they over a demand side
  • 02:59:25
    working group? No, that's WMS metering, working groups
  • 02:59:29
    also under WMS. OK. Well, then do we just need WMS?
  • 02:59:34
    Yeah, I thought for some reason I remembered
  • 02:59:39
    that. OK. Thank you for helping me. Let me correct
  • 02:59:45
    one thing. This NPRR only uses state estimator,
  • 02:59:52
    our numbers from the real time system. It does not
  • 02:59:57
    use meters and it's only an estimate of what the true
  • 03:00:03
    demand response is because obviously there's demand
  • 03:00:07
    response all the way down into the residential. So
  • 03:00:11
    what this is looking at is what response is being seen
  • 03:00:16
    on the transmission system coming directly out of the
  • 03:00:19
    state estimator every five minutes.
  • 03:00:25
    I understand that. But mhm We can talk about doing
  • 03:00:30
    it practically. Yeah.
  • 03:00:35
    Sounds like more conversation to come, Bob. Did you
  • 03:00:39
    have? You're good. OK,
  • 03:00:43
    Bob, we see your comment in the chat. Um
  • 03:00:53
    OK, Brian,
  • 03:00:56
    hey Floyd, I I just wanted to vocally support this
  • 03:01:00
    from, for Calpine. Uh we think trying to um account
  • 03:01:07
    uh dr and include it in uh our resource adequacy um
  • 03:01:14
    projects is, is a great, great thing and I applaud
  • 03:01:17
    you for putting this together. Look forward to where
  • 03:01:20
    this ends up. Thank you. Thank you, Katie.
  • 03:01:28
    Did you have? Um ok. Um Let's see.
  • 03:01:34
    Ok, John Ross.
  • 03:01:39
    Hi, John Hubbard with TIEC. Um I just wanted to, to
  • 03:01:43
    make a comment that uh I think it'd be helpful to understand
  • 03:01:48
    the protection of consumer information associated with
  • 03:01:51
    the collection of these demand response data just to
  • 03:01:54
    make sure that it remains protected and doesn't expire
  • 03:01:58
    A and so I think making sure that that's fully covered
  • 03:02:03
    would be important. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 03:02:10
    Any other conversation on this? I think Eric, go ahead
  • 03:02:16
    Yeah, I just, well, we have a second. The question
  • 03:02:19
    I'm gonna have at WMS and maybe DSWG just
  • 03:02:22
    how, how could the demand response survey that we do
  • 03:02:26
    every year? And I know that the REPs do a lot of
  • 03:02:29
    work, submitting information on, on their demand response
  • 03:02:33
    programs and I'm just curious um if there's any kind
  • 03:02:37
    of tie in or benefit that could be gained from using
  • 03:02:41
    that together.
  • 03:02:43
    Good question. OK.
  • 03:02:47
    Anybody else?
  • 03:02:51
    Ok. So we'll add that to the, go ahead. Just susie
  • 03:02:55
    double check me. Did we get John and Bob to withdraw
  • 03:02:59
    their motion officially so that we can throw it on
  • 03:03:00
    the combo ballot? Ok, cool. I'm saying. Nods from Bob
  • 03:03:02
    or John. Thank y'all, All its on the combo ballot with
  • 03:03:05
    a table and referred to WMS correct? Thanks y'all
  • 03:03:08
    Thanks for keeping me clear.
  • 03:03:16
    Ok,
  • Item 9 - Notice of Withdrawal - Diana Coleman
    03:03:19
    that leads us to section nine, which is a notice of
  • Item 9.1 - NPRR1162, Single Agent Designation for a QSE and its Sub-QSEs for Voice Communications over the ERCOT WAN
    03:03:21
    withdrawal of 1162 which is the single agent destination
  • 03:03:25
    designation for a QSE and its sub QSE for voice communications
  • 03:03:28
    over the hot land
  • 03:03:35
    core. Do we need to do anything on this? It's just
  • 03:03:37
    nothing to do with that one. That's just a notice and
  • 03:03:39
    we've spoken to this, I think in a couple of PRS
  • 03:03:41
    Is that now that John's SCR825 has crossed the finish
  • 03:03:45
    line and that's in the hopper for when somebody needs
  • 03:03:48
    this arrangement. We no longer need 1162 to forbid
  • 03:03:52
    that arrangement so formally withdrawn. No boat ever
  • 03:03:55
    happened at PRS on the language. So it's gone. This
  • 03:03:58
    is just the last goodbye. So you know why it's not
  • 03:04:00
    on the um agenda anymore? It's not the cold medicine
  • Item 10 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
    03:04:04
    it's actually gone. Ok. Thank you, Corey. And then
  • Item 10.1 - NPRR1231, FFSS Program Communication Improvements and Additional <br />Clarifications
    03:04:09
    the other item under other business. This is also not
  • 03:04:14
    up for a vote as rather an awareness item on 1231.
  • 03:04:20
    This is the firm fuel supply program, communication
  • 03:04:22
    improvements and additional clarifications. This is
  • 03:04:25
    a new NPRR that comes to us from ERCOT. Um
  • 03:04:29
    It's not urgent, it's not being considered today, but
  • 03:04:31
    rather today, this item is just for awareness that
  • 03:04:34
    folks that this has uh been posted. And ERCOT wanted
  • 03:04:38
    to announce the NPRR and get any questions answered
  • 03:04:42
    as soon as possible. So they can hopefully make it
  • 03:04:44
    out of the June PRS meeting.
  • 03:04:50
    Ok.
  • 03:04:53
    Anything else for other business?
  • 03:04:57
    I think Maggie's on the phone to Maggie. Please go
  • 03:04:59
    ahead your preview trailer. Hi. Yes, we submitted 1231
  • 03:05:03
    and as Diana mentioned, we just wanted to put this
  • 03:05:06
    on everybody's radar to go through and read and um
  • 03:05:11
    it will be up at the June PRS. We just didn't
  • 03:05:14
    get it submitted in time to be discussed at this PRS.
  • 03:05:16
    Uh We will also break bringing this to the next
  • 03:05:19
    WMS meeting as well. That's on June 5th to also discuss
  • 03:05:24
    these items more in depth. So if anybody has any additional
  • 03:05:27
    questions or comments related to this, you can also
  • 03:05:30
    feel free to reach out to me prior to those meetings
  • 03:05:33
    as well and we can discuss those items. Thank you so
  • 03:05:36
    much for the opportunity to bring this here. As well
  • 03:05:40
    Thank you, Maggie.
  • 03:05:43
    Ok. So we'll look forward to more conversation on 1231
  • 03:05:47
    in June.
  • 03:05:50
    So to be clear, nobody wants to waive notice and create
  • 03:05:52
    an urgent status for it. I mean, we want, we've done
  • 03:05:56
    everything else today.
  • Item 11 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
    03:05:58
    Ok. All right. So I think that finally gets us to our
  • 03:06:02
    combo ballot and all the items that we have recommended
  • 03:06:08
    to include or here with what Corey has on the screen
  • 03:06:12
    So we would need a motion in a second for the combo
  • 03:06:14
    ballot. John, we have a motion by John Burnell. Do
  • 03:06:19
    we have a second? Ok, Kevin Hanson. Ok. So we have
  • 03:06:22
    a motion and a second, Corey.
  • 03:06:26
    All right. Thank you all very much
  • 03:06:31
    on our motion to approve the combo ballot. We will
  • 03:06:33
    start up with the consumers with Eric.
  • 03:06:38
    Thank you, Nabaraj. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mark Dreyfus
  • 03:06:44
    Thank you, Ryan. Yes. Thank you on to the co ops Lucas
  • 03:06:50
    Thank you Blake. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Yes. Thank you
  • 03:06:55
    on to our independent generators. Andy. Yes. Thank
  • 03:06:58
    you Kit.
  • 03:07:00
    Yes. Thank you, Katie. Hey, quick question. If I abstain
  • 03:07:04
    will I be infamous or famous? Depends I vote. Yes,
  • 03:07:13
    Brian, see all the above. Yes, is the only answer.
  • 03:07:20
    Thank you, Brian Carrie. Yes. Thank you, Bob. Yes,
  • 03:07:24
    sir. Thank you Alex. Yes. Thank you. Last chance for
  • 03:07:30
    David Mendham.
  • 03:07:32
    Ok. Ok.
  • 03:07:36
    On to our IPMs John. Yes. Thank you, Resmi.
  • 03:07:42
    Yes, thanks. Thank you, Ian Thank you, Kevin. Yes,
  • 03:07:46
    thank you. Thank you on the Iras Bill. Yes. Thank you
  • 03:07:53
    Erin
  • 03:07:56
    bus along the way
  • 03:08:00
    on to our IOUs Martha. Yes. Thank you, Mark Spencer
  • 03:08:05
    Yes. Thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks. Thank you on to our
  • 03:08:09
    Munis Diana. Yes. Thank you, Ashley. Yes. Thank you
  • 03:08:16
    and Faith. Yes. Thank you. Cory thank you,
  • 03:08:20
    uh unanimous support. Thank y'all.
  • 03:08:27
    Ok.
  • 03:08:30
    Thank you, everybody. We um clearly understand our
  • 03:08:33
    assignment. So thank you all so much. I know that this
  • 03:08:36
    agenda was a little challenging. We had a very good
  • 03:08:39
    refresher on all of our Robert's rules of Orders. Um
  • 03:08:42
    Corey Susie, thank you all for keeping us uh straight
  • Item 12 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
    03:08:46
    We will see everybody again in uh June on June 13th
  • 03:08:51
    All right, everybody have a good day. Thank you.
ECRS Under-Generation Trigger Parameter Analysis
Apr 26, 2024 - pptx - 413.6 KB
Agenda Prs 20240509
May 02, 2024 - docx - 45 KB
Agenda Prs 20240509 V2
May 07, 2024 - docx - 45.7 KB
2024 Prs Combined Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 145 KB
Draft Minutes Prs 20240405
May 02, 2024 - docx - 78.7 KB
Draft Minutes Prs 20240405 V1
May 03, 2024 - docx - 78.7 KB
2024 Prs Nprr1228 Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
May 9, 2024 Prs Meeting Materials
May 03, 2024 - zip - 5.1 MB
May 9, 2024 Prs Meeting Materials
May 07, 2024 - zip - 5.3 MB
2024 Prs Nprr1229 Waive Notice Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
May 9, 2024 Prs Meeting Materials
May 02, 2024 - zip - 5.1 MB
2024 Prs Nprr1230 Waive Notice Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
May 9, 2024 Prs Meeting Materials
May 07, 2024 - zip - 5.6 MB
2024 Prs Nprr1230 Urgency Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
2024 Prs Nprr1230 Language Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
2024 Prs Nprr1198 Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
2024 Prs Nprr1190 Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 112.5 KB
2024 Prs Nprr1224 Ballot 20240509
May 09, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
Agenda Prs 20240509 V3
May 07, 2024 - docx - 45.8 KB
Draft Minutes Prs 20240405 V3
May 08, 2024 - docx - 78.7 KB
Prs May 2024 Project Update
May 07, 2024 - pptx - 243.1 KB
No Action Required Prs 20240509
May 08, 2024 - pptx - 53 KB
ECRS Under-Generation Trigger Parameter Analysis
Apr 26, 2024 - pptx - 413.5 KB
Proposed May 2024 Prs Combined Ballot
May 08, 2024 - pptx - 89.1 KB
May 9, 2024 Prs Meeting Materials
May 08, 2024 - zip - 5.8 MB
PRS - NPRR1230 V2
May 08, 2024 - pptx - 357.9 KB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:01:10
2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:01:49
2.1 - April 5, 2024
Starts at 00:01:53
3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:02:30
4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
Starts at 00:03:28
4.1 - Review of Aging Projects
Starts at 00:08:02
5 - Urgency Vote - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:22:22
5.1 - NPRR1228, Continued One-Winter Procurements for Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS
Starts at 00:22:42
5.2 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - Waive Notice – Possible Vote
Starts at 00:30:29
5.3 - NPRR1230, Methodology for Setting Transmission Shadow Price Caps for an IROL in SCED - Waive Notice – Possible Vote
Starts at 01:01:36
6 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote * denotes no impact
Starts at 01:55:52
6.1 - NPRR1198, Congestion Mitigation Using Topology Reconfigurations
Starts at 01:55:58
6.2 - NPRR1218, REC Program Changes Per P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.173, Renewable Energy Credit Program
Starts at 02:07:24
6.3 - NPRR1220, Market Restart Approval Process Modifications*
Starts at 02:07:54
6.4 - NPRR1222, Public Utility Commission of Texas Approval of the Methodology for Determining Ancillary Service Requirements*
Starts at 02:08:02
6.5 - NPRR1223, Addition of TA Contact Information Into TDSP Application Form*
Starts at 02:08:11
7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 02:09:52
7.5 - NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased NOIE Load Costs
Starts at 02:10:08
7.9.1 - NPRR1215, Clarifications to the Day-Ahead Market (DAM
Starts at 02:14:23
7.9.2 - NPRR1216, Implementation of Emergency Pricing Program
Starts at 02:17:26
7.9.6 - NPRR1224, ECRS Manual Deployment Triggers – URGENT - Nitika Mago
Starts at 02:18:50
8 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 02:52:00
8.1 - NPRR1225, Exclusion of Lubbock Load from Securitization Charges
Starts at 02:52:03
8.2 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
Starts at 02:54:24
9 - Notice of Withdrawal - Diana Coleman
Starts at 03:03:19
9.1 - NPRR1162, Single Agent Designation for a QSE and its Sub-QSEs for Voice Communications over the ERCOT WAN
Starts at 03:03:21
10 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
Starts at 03:04:04
10.1 - NPRR1231, FFSS Program Communication Improvements and Additional &lt;br /&gt;Clarifications
Starts at 03:04:09
11 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 03:05:58
12 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
Starts at 03:08:46

Help Desk