11/14/2024 01:00 PM
Advertisement
Current Time 21:22
Duration 1:37:52
Loaded: 21.85%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:16:30
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 00:00:14
    Good afternoon, PRS. Oh, sorry, hard on the mic.
  • 00:00:18
    Pardon? This is Brittany trying to stand in for
  • 00:00:22
    Susie Clifton. Wish me well.
  • 00:00:25
    Just some quick housekeeping reminders.
  • 00:00:28
    If WMS. I mean, I'm sorry. If the WebEx quits
  • 00:00:33
    on us, please re log in using the
  • 00:00:37
    same information that's currently posted. And if the
  • 00:00:41
    problems persist, we'll send out new information.
  • 00:00:44
    We vote by ballot in these meetings.
  • 00:00:47
    So as we approach your segment, if you will take yourself
  • 00:00:52
    off mute, beware the dreaded double mute.
  • 00:00:57
    And then after you've voted, if you'll return to mute, that'll help us move things
  • 00:01:01
    along quietly.
  • 00:01:05
    We have John
  • 00:01:09
    Russ Hubbard in for Melissa Trevino today.
  • 00:01:12
    Welcome. And Diana, you have
  • 00:01:16
    quorum when you're ready to start. Thank you all. Thanks, Brittany.
  • 00:01:20
    Okay, John Ross, welcome.
  • 00:01:24
    Welcome, everybody, to the November afternoon version of
  • 00:01:28
    PRS. We'll start like we always do, with the antitrust admonition,
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman
    00:01:32
    which says, to avoid raising concerns about antitrust liability,
  • 00:01:36
    participants in ERCOT activities should refrain from proposing any action
  • 00:01:40
    or measure that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal or state
  • 00:01:44
    law. And for more information, stakeholders can go to the Statement of Position that's
  • 00:01:48
    located on the ERCOT website. Also, any presentation and materials
  • 00:01:52
    that are submitted by market participants or any other entity to ERCOT
  • 00:01:56
    are received and posted with the acknowledgement that the information will be considered
  • 00:01:59
    public. Thank you, Corey.
  • Item 2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman
    00:02:04
    Okay, I don't believe I saw
  • Item 2.1 - October 17, 2024
    00:02:07
    any additions or revisions
  • 00:02:11
    to the meeting minutes from our October 17th meeting.
  • 00:02:15
    Corey's telling me no. So we could add that
  • 00:02:18
    to the combo ballot at the end unless there is any
  • Item 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
    00:02:22
    objections to that. All right,
  • 00:02:26
    and then last month we presented TAC
  • 00:02:29
    with four proposed revision requests. They approved three
  • 00:02:33
    of those proposals and tabled one item.
  • 00:02:37
    TAC unanimously voted to table NPRR1180.
  • 00:02:42
    This is going to be considered with the adjoining PGRR
  • 00:02:45
    107. And we are going to leave that table there
  • 00:02:49
    until the PGRR can catch up. And then the other changes
  • 00:02:53
    were 1245, 1197 and 1249.
  • 00:02:56
    TAC did approve all three of those items.
  • 00:03:01
    Any questions or comments on anything for the TAC report?
  • 00:03:05
    Okay. All right, so that takes us
  • 00:03:09
    to our project update. Troy, we'll go ahead and hand it over
  • 00:03:12
    to you. Thank you. Good afternoon, PRS.
  • Item 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
    00:03:16
    This is Troy Anderson with ERCOT Portfolio Management with my project
  • 00:03:20
    update. So we can pause here on the agenda.
  • 00:03:24
    I've added back the major projects as requested last month,
  • 00:03:28
    so we'll get to that. And a couple other things I'm working on that
  • 00:03:31
    are not yet in my slides. I'm working on the
  • 00:03:35
    FTE analysis that was requested a couple months ago. So you'll
  • 00:03:39
    see that at a future meeting as well as the request to
  • 00:03:44
    give PRS any ideas of how you could help
  • 00:03:47
    us improve our capacity to
  • 00:03:50
    deliver revision requests. So I've got some internal discussions going
  • 00:03:54
    on with that and hope to bring some ideas forward
  • 00:03:58
    down the road. Okay, next slide.
  • 00:04:02
    So we have a lot going on. Had to start reducing font on my
  • 00:04:06
    slide here to squeeze everything in. So in
  • 00:04:10
    November we had a couple things go live on the first and those
  • 00:04:13
    were discussed before. Second part of
  • 00:04:16
    1205, which completes 1205 and then
  • 00:04:21
    1218 relating to the REC program.
  • 00:04:24
    And the big highlight was the Go Live of Texas set this past
  • 00:04:28
    weekend. You see the nine revision requests that are
  • 00:04:32
    part of that. So I want to give kudos to all involved
  • 00:04:36
    market participants and the ERCOT project team for
  • 00:04:40
    delivering such a smooth
  • 00:04:44
    go live. So thank you to everyone for that.
  • 00:04:49
    Then tomorrow NPRR1231
  • 00:04:53
    goes live. And if you watch the market notices, a notice came
  • 00:04:57
    out this morning with a bunch of detail on that relating to
  • 00:05:02
    FFSS. That's firm fuel, I think. Right then
  • 00:05:07
    on December 1st we have kind of the
  • 00:05:11
    wrap up of 1217. That's the VDI,
  • 00:05:16
    the removal of the VDI requirement for
  • 00:05:21
    deployment and recall of load resources and ERS resources. We've been
  • 00:05:24
    doing BDI and XML for a couple months.
  • 00:05:27
    So the plan is to go XML only on that day.
  • 00:05:31
    We're also hoping to deliver a final piece of 799
  • 00:05:35
    and export functionality that we were unable to get in
  • 00:05:39
    with the original go live of 799on12.1.
  • 00:05:43
    And then finally in the regular December release we have some Rio
  • 00:05:47
    things going in 1184. And figure 94,
  • 00:05:51
    small change from my report last month.
  • 00:05:55
    Figure 88 got bumped to January.
  • 00:05:59
    Figure 82 is going to be part of December.
  • 00:06:05
    So next slide is a lot of the same information with
  • 00:06:08
    the red text on any things that changed. So in the lower right you
  • 00:06:12
    can see the PGRR82 and the
  • 00:06:16
    PGRR88. Next slide,
  • 00:06:20
    2025, there's PGRR88
  • 00:06:24
    landing in January. No other changes here.
  • 00:06:29
    Just a reminder. This is mirroring kind of the reporting that Matt
  • 00:06:33
    Marinus is doing around rtc and
  • 00:06:36
    I would refer to his materials for any important
  • 00:06:40
    RTC information.
  • 00:06:44
    Okay, next is the return of the major project
  • 00:06:48
    slide and this is trued up for the RTC
  • 00:06:52
    go live, which you see there is that yellow star in
  • 00:06:56
    late 2025. Stabilization will continue into
  • 00:07:01
    2026. We'll see how long that runs for,
  • 00:07:04
    but it, it's certainly be going to be a handful of months.
  • 00:07:09
    I've also tweaked the DRRS timeline there.
  • 00:07:14
    This is all just theoretical at this point, but we know
  • 00:07:17
    that 1235 is still making its way through the stakeholder process and
  • 00:07:22
    there's a potential that we would try to kick something off in late 25.
  • 00:07:26
    PCM is more likely to trail that.
  • 00:07:29
    A lot to be determined there, of course,
  • 00:07:33
    then down at the bottom, update updated
  • 00:07:37
    things to make them more current. As you know, 1023 with CRR
  • 00:07:41
    is on hold for a while while we work on
  • 00:07:46
    improvements to the current process and ability to process transactions.
  • 00:07:50
    And then what comes after that is very much tbd. So that'll,
  • 00:07:54
    there'll be discussions around that.
  • 00:07:57
    Hey, Troy, good question.
  • 00:08:00
    Again, very far out in the future, might not have any insight,
  • 00:08:04
    but in terms of the implementation timelines in gray 2026,
  • 00:08:08
    we see DRRS overlapping PCM.
  • 00:08:11
    Assuming this timeline stays flat, are those two projects,
  • 00:08:15
    in terms of resource constraint, as disruptive as RTC
  • 00:08:19
    is not? I don't,
  • 00:08:23
    I don't believe so. I think our DRRS estimate was what,
  • 00:08:27
    2 to 3 million? Something like that. And PCM,
  • 00:08:31
    I think, was similar. So, you know, RTC was
  • 00:08:35
    estimated to be 50 million. As we approach
  • 00:08:38
    execution for all the sub projects, it's coming in a bit under that,
  • 00:08:42
    so maybe mid-40s. So these
  • 00:08:45
    are certainly smaller lifts than that.
  • 00:08:50
    Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, and thinking about the,
  • 00:08:52
    the RTC freeze, right? You're saying that once that's completed,
  • 00:08:56
    even though ERCOT's implementing PCM and DRRS, there's, there's going to be additional
  • 00:09:00
    bandwidth relative to what they're having to do with RTC.
  • 00:09:04
    I would think so. We certainly won't shut everything down while those are running,
  • 00:09:07
    because they don't. They're not so all encompassing of the organization.
  • 00:09:11
    Okay, thank you,
  • 00:09:15
    Troy. It looks like we have a couple of questions on this slide too,
  • 00:09:18
    Roy. True.
  • 00:09:22
    Yeah, Troy and I haven't
  • 00:09:25
    been able to find it, but like NPRR1219 back in late September,
  • 00:09:29
    which involves the CDR.
  • 00:09:33
    I didn't see that anywhere on here.
  • 00:09:36
    Roy, you're kind of breaking up. Did you get that, troy? I heard 12:19.
  • 00:09:40
    Roy, you're kind of breaking up. Did you get that, troy? I heard 12:19.
  • 00:09:44
    I think that's the main part of the question. Sorry, go ahead.
  • 00:09:48
    Oh, it's okay. Hey, Roy, try turning off your camera, your video feed.
  • 00:09:54
    Let me take a look here, quick, to see where we see
  • 00:09:58
    1219 in the mix, if I can
  • 00:10:02
    find it. We have.
  • 00:10:05
    We've been working hard to get everything with at least some kind of target
  • 00:10:08
    so that when we get to early 25, we can come back here to PRS
  • 00:10:12
    and talk about where you think everything fits in.
  • 00:10:15
    And so I'm sure I have an estimate out there on 12 19, if you
  • 00:10:18
    don't mind, Roy, can I send that to you offline?
  • 00:10:24
    That'd be great, Troy. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:10:27
    Okay, looks like Dave Maggio is no longer in the
  • 00:10:31
    queue, and Bill Barnes did express some sentiment
  • 00:10:35
    thanking you for this broader project update. It's good to see both the
  • 00:10:38
    projects and the other project highlights, so thank you for that,
  • 00:10:41
    Troy. Steve Reedy.
  • 00:10:45
    Yeah, thanks. Regarding the DRRS implementation,
  • 00:10:50
    is that. I mean, is that the implementation project
  • 00:10:54
    possibly starts off in Q4,
  • 00:10:57
    2025, or are you talking about a possibility of
  • 00:11:01
    actually implementing DRRS in Q4,
  • 00:11:04
    2025? No, that gray box would. The start of the gray box is when the
  • 00:11:07
    project might start. So the duration
  • 00:11:11
    of that whole effort would extend. You know,
  • 00:11:14
    certainly. I forget what the duration was on the ia,
  • 00:11:17
    but year and a half, couple years
  • 00:11:21
    potentially. So not a go live in 25.
  • 00:11:24
    Okay, thanks.
  • 00:11:27
    And Steve, your question reminds me that back on Slide
  • 00:11:32
    4. Well, I do have 945 on there.
  • 00:11:36
    Okay. I thought I neglected to put 945 on
  • 00:11:40
    this as a target in December on the 18th,
  • 00:11:44
    so I don't have that on Slide 3, but that
  • 00:11:48
    is one additional go live in December. We're targeting the
  • 00:11:51
    reporting for 945 on December 18th. Excellent,
  • 00:11:54
    thanks.
  • 00:11:58
    Okay, I have a clear cue. Go ahead, Troy. Thank you.
  • 00:12:01
    On to slide 7, the two items that you
  • 00:12:05
    tabled on my. On my behalf last month, we have
  • 00:12:10
    revised ias posted so I can talk about those when we get to
  • 00:12:14
    the next agenda item. And then slide eight,
  • 00:12:17
    just a reminder that TWG is meeting every month talking about a lot of
  • 00:12:21
    technical details. So if you have technical folks
  • 00:12:25
    in your house that are interested, they can plug into this forum,
  • 00:12:30
    you can take. Any other questions,
  • 00:12:35
    Roy? True.
  • 00:12:39
    Yeah, true. Just want to check. Did you mean for those priority
  • 00:12:46
    and rank to have the same rank number?
  • 00:12:49
    Roy, would it be possible for
  • 00:12:52
    you to type it in the chat so we can make sure that we get
  • 00:12:55
    everything? Yeah. Okay.
  • 00:12:59
    I think Corey picked up on the question. Oh, okay. These.
  • 00:13:02
    I have revised priorities and ranks here, and I gave them the
  • 00:13:05
    same rank intentionally. And we can talk
  • 00:13:09
    about that when we talk and get into the next agenda item,
  • 00:13:12
    if you don't mind.
  • 00:13:15
    Hopefully that was the question.
  • 00:13:20
    Okay, thank you. Thank you, Troy. And again,
  • 00:13:23
    thank you to you and your group for
  • 00:13:27
    getting all of that Information out. I know that there's a lot of work that
  • 00:13:30
    goes behind a very seemingly quick update, and we appreciate
  • 00:13:34
    that. And again, a big shout out for the Texas set. I know that
  • 00:13:37
    there is a numerous amount of revisions and changes and
  • 00:13:41
    discussions and meetings that was required to make that
  • 00:13:44
    happen. So thank you all for working together and making
  • 00:13:48
    that happen as well.
  • Item 5 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman
    00:13:51
    Okay, so that takes US to section 5,
  • Item 5.1 - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
    00:13:55
    and as Troy noted earlier, we have four
  • 00:13:58
    items that are up for impact analysis and prioritization.
  • 00:14:03
    1239 and 1240. Both have revised IAS that
  • 00:14:06
    Troy highlighted a moment ago. This is moving the reports
  • 00:14:10
    from the secure portion of ERCOT to the public facing ERCOT
  • 00:14:14
    webpage. And we can see there on the screen we
  • 00:14:18
    have the costs for 1239 and
  • 00:14:22
    the project implementation or the time requirements for that
  • 00:14:25
    one. Troy, is there anything that we wanted to highlight project wise for
  • 00:14:29
    either of these? Yeah, I'd just like to say that thank you for
  • 00:14:32
    tabling. Last month we resharpened the pencil.
  • 00:14:36
    The costs you see on these are now the cost to move them
  • 00:14:40
    from secure to public. We removed
  • 00:14:43
    the cost to build out the APIs for these because we
  • 00:14:47
    feel like that'll be more efficiently done along with a bunch of other ERCOT
  • 00:14:51
    API work in 2025. We're hoping
  • 00:14:55
    these two convert 63 different
  • 00:14:59
    reports from secure to public. And I
  • 00:15:02
    did put notes on my slide that implementation will
  • 00:15:06
    depend on any impacts with RTC. So we're
  • 00:15:09
    hoping we can do some of this in parallel. But if RTC conflicts
  • 00:15:14
    arise, we know that we'll have to pause for that.
  • 00:15:19
    And I did change the priority from 26 to 25 because we might be
  • 00:15:22
    able to get this in 25. And the rank is the same because
  • Item 5.2 - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
    00:15:26
    we would do them together. Okay,
  • 00:15:30
    how does everybody feel about putting 1239 and 1240 both
  • 00:15:33
    on the combo ballot? We good with that? Okay, I'm seeing on the
  • 00:15:37
    head said. Thank you, Corey. We'll add 1239 and 1240 with
  • Item 5.3 - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era*
    00:15:41
    the meeting minutes. And then next up we have 1246.
  • 00:15:45
    This is the ESR terminology alignment for the single model era.
  • 00:15:49
    This is preparing for the RTC initiative that's
  • 00:15:53
    coming up next year. No costs associated with this one.
  • 00:15:57
    Last month we voted unanimously to recommend the language approval.
  • 00:16:01
    And as amended by the September 20th ERCOT comments,
  • 00:16:05
    how does everybody feel about adding this one to the combo ballot? Anybody have any
  • 00:16:09
    thoughts or comments? Okay, Corey, I think this one would
  • 00:16:13
    be good as well.
  • Item 5.4 - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data*
    00:16:18
    And then last but not least, we have a final one coming to us
  • 00:16:21
    from ERCOT, which is the Modeling deadline for initial
  • 00:16:25
    submission of resource registration data. This is
  • 00:16:28
    modifying the timeline for the
  • 00:16:32
    registration up a one month period to give ERCOT
  • 00:16:36
    and the resource entities sometimes to make sure that there's no
  • 00:16:40
    errors. There's nothing else that needs to be modified in that submission.
  • 00:16:44
    Again, no cost, no project on this one. How does everybody feel?
  • 00:16:49
    Combo ballot. Okay,
  • 00:16:52
    Corey, we may have set a record for cost and
  • 00:17:00
    project implementation. Okay,
  • 00:17:04
    Nothing in the queue. All right, so then we'll get to the
  • Item 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
    00:17:08
    sea tabled items. We have several items that are still either
  • 00:17:12
    pending and waiting on further discussion at working
  • 00:17:15
    groups, but we'll go through them just to make sure there's been
  • 00:17:19
    some comments on some of these. And so if there's anything that anybody
  • 00:17:22
    would like to raise, just let us know.
  • Item 6.03 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
    00:17:27
    We'll start with NPRR1200. This is
  • 00:17:31
    the utilization of the calculated values for non wholesale
  • 00:17:34
    storage load for ESRs. This item came up at
  • 00:17:38
    WMS last week and there was
  • 00:17:42
    the motion to take
  • 00:17:46
    this up next month and at the Metering
  • 00:17:49
    Working Group. And it looks like the Metering Working Group has a
  • 00:17:53
    meeting on the 20th and so hopefully this will
  • 00:17:56
    make it to the agenda and we'll have some further conversations on 1200.
  • 00:18:02
    1202.
  • Item 6.04 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
    00:18:06
    WMWG has also been looking at this.
  • 00:18:09
    We've had some comments that were filed after
  • 00:18:14
    last month's PRS. And so I wanted to see
  • 00:18:18
    if those who had filed comments wanted to raise those or if that is something
  • 00:18:21
    that we want to remain tabled. Just again,
  • 00:18:24
    as a reminder, if it's tabled, we don't have to do anything with it.
  • 00:18:27
    But for folks who had filed comments, if you would like to speak to
  • 00:18:30
    those, we can certainly do that or we can leave them on the table list
  • Item 6.05 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
    00:18:35
    now. Okay,
  • 00:18:39
    1214, I believe CMWG
  • 00:18:43
    is still looking at this for one more month and then it will go back
  • 00:18:46
    to WMS in December. I believe that's right.
  • 00:18:50
    And then we also had some joint comments that were filed earlier
  • 00:18:54
    this month in response to ERCOT's August 9
  • Item 6.06 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
    00:18:58
    comments. And then Troy had
  • 00:19:01
    a slide on his update for 1226.
  • 00:19:04
    It looks like Technology Working Group will be taking up 1226,
  • 00:19:08
    so we'll have some more conversation on that. So we may
  • 00:19:12
    have some more to talk about next time PRS meets on 1226.
  • Item 6.07 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
    00:19:19
    Okay,
  • 00:19:24
    1229.
  • 00:19:29
    We had some comments that were filed.
  • 00:19:34
    Oh Bill, I'm sorry. On 1202.
  • 00:19:38
    Go ahead. Thanks, Diana. I just wanted to write an update to the
  • 00:19:42
    group. Our last discussion of 1202.
  • 00:19:45
    I can't remember if it was at
  • 00:19:49
    WMS or PRS, ERCOT expressed a desire to
  • 00:19:53
    move forward 1234 and continued some concerns with
  • 00:19:57
    1202. So I proposed the notion
  • 00:20:00
    of combining the fee structure from
  • 00:20:05
    longhorn comments and 1202 into 1234.
  • 00:20:09
    ERCOT was interested in that idea. I have
  • 00:20:13
    shared comments with ERCOT staff that might
  • 00:20:18
    end up being a combination of those two. So an additional comment set on 1234
  • 00:20:22
    that incorporates some of the components in long haul comments or 1202.
  • 00:20:25
    So I just wanted the PRS members to be aware that that discussion is
  • 00:20:29
    happening. Thanks. Great. Thank you Bill.
  • Item 6.08 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
    00:20:36
    And then speaking of 1234, we also had some ERCOT comments that were filed
  • 00:20:39
    earlier this week, but it
  • 00:20:42
    sounds like we're going to still have those conversations between 12:02
  • 00:20:46
    and 12:34.
  • 00:20:49
    So thank you.
  • Item 6.09 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
    00:20:52
    1235. We tabled this back in June and we sent it over to
  • 00:20:56
    ROS and WMS. I believe this is still tabled at SAWG
  • 00:21:03
    looking for possible PUC discussion on
  • 00:21:06
    this item. So this one's still at WMS I believe as well.
  • 00:21:10
    We did have some luminant comments that
  • 00:21:13
    were filed, I believe it was yesterday.
  • 00:21:17
    So it looks like conversations are still ongoing for 1235.
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 6.10 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
    00:21:22
    1238. We had some comments
  • 00:21:25
    by the still mills that were filed regarding the definition for
  • 00:21:30
    becls at the end of last month and
  • 00:21:35
    I believe WMS may take action on it, but we
  • 00:21:39
    can see what happens in December and
  • 00:21:43
    then I think that will
  • 00:21:47
    take us to 1247.
  • Item 6.14 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects
    00:21:51
    So 1247 this is coming
  • 00:21:55
    to us and this is the congestion
  • 00:21:59
    cost savings test and there's been a lot of discussion on
  • 00:22:03
    this issue. This was filed back in August prior
  • 00:22:06
    to our August PRS meeting. This has also
  • 00:22:10
    been discussed at more than one ROS. We've had several planning
  • 00:22:14
    working group meetings. We've had a special planning working group
  • 00:22:18
    workshop. It was at ROS last week
  • 00:22:22
    and we've had several comments that were filed.
  • 00:22:25
    One of the if
  • 00:22:31
    you weren't plugged in at ROS, it was approved,
  • 00:22:34
    but there was 11 abstentions and several no's.
  • 00:22:37
    And one of the contentions was the reference to
  • 00:22:41
    the two documents that were
  • 00:22:45
    referenced in the protocol language that ERCOT
  • 00:22:49
    did not feel would be best suited for the protocols,
  • 00:22:52
    but rather they felt it would be best served to
  • 00:22:56
    revise the description of the NPRR rather than
  • 00:23:00
    including reference those two documents in the protocol language.
  • 00:23:07
    Katie Rich, I see you in the queued. Did you want to go
  • 00:23:10
    ahead and highlight some of the conversation at ROS last week?
  • 00:23:14
    Just wanted to correct you. We had one ROS meeting
  • 00:23:19
    to Take a vote. So we didn't have multiple ROS.
  • 00:23:22
    We had it discussed at PLWG and then there was a special
  • 00:23:25
    PLWG and leadership did a great job of trying to
  • 00:23:30
    see where we could get to. And we ended up with two sets of comments
  • 00:23:34
    that came to ROS for a vote in the motion was for
  • 00:23:38
    the ERCOT set of comments.
  • 00:23:41
    And so that's what garnered the
  • 00:23:45
    results that you see here on the screen in the comments.
  • 00:23:50
    Okay, thank you. And we've also
  • 00:23:54
    spent some time with ERCOT as well making sure
  • 00:23:57
    that we understand what their comments were intending
  • 00:24:01
    to accomplish with what was filed earlier this week as
  • 00:24:05
    well. And so with
  • 00:24:09
    the urgency that's associated with
  • 00:24:12
    this proposed change, in order to get
  • 00:24:19
    this NPRR in particular moving today,
  • 00:24:23
    we would have to file urgency, urgency on 1247
  • 00:24:27
    in order to get the language and the impact analysis
  • 00:24:31
    together. Because typically we would do the language first, then we would have a
  • 00:24:34
    second meeting for the cost. So in order to move
  • 00:24:37
    this forward we would have to do urgency.
  • 00:24:40
    So we'd have to vote on that and then we could figure out if
  • 00:24:44
    we have consensus or thoughts
  • 00:24:49
    on the latest ERCOT comments. I don't know,
  • 00:24:52
    Matt Arthur, if you are on,
  • 00:24:55
    but we can see if ERCOT wants to speak to their comments.
  • 00:24:58
    And while we're waiting on that, Martha, I'll let you go ahead.
  • 00:25:01
    Yeah, I was actually wanting to see if we could hear ERCOT speak to the
  • 00:25:04
    comments they filed on the 11th, please. Okay,
  • 00:25:08
    Matt, go ahead. Certainly. This is
  • 00:25:11
    Matt Arthur filed some
  • 00:25:15
    comments on the 11th following the
  • 00:25:19
    discussion at ROS. I think our
  • 00:25:23
    goal with that filing was to revise
  • 00:25:28
    the revision description in the preamble to NPRR1247
  • 00:25:32
    to reference the two white
  • 00:25:36
    papers. The two white papers being the congestion cost
  • 00:25:39
    savings test guideline white paper which provides
  • 00:25:43
    additional details about how ERCOT
  • 00:25:47
    intends to perform that test and the
  • 00:25:51
    weather scenarios and transmission outcome outages white paper, which is
  • 00:25:55
    a long standing white paper which would be applied to the congestion
  • 00:25:59
    cost savings test as it is currently to the production cost savings test.
  • 00:26:03
    So at ROS and at PLWG,
  • 00:26:07
    I believe the joint commenters have expressed desire for
  • 00:26:12
    ensuring transparency to stakeholders
  • 00:26:16
    that these two documents are being
  • 00:26:20
    applied to the congestion cost savings test. And so
  • 00:26:24
    it's ERCOT's preference not to refer to those
  • 00:26:28
    white papers in the protocols themselves
  • 00:26:32
    for a couple reasons that I'm happy to get into if y'all would like.
  • 00:26:36
    But we were comfortable revising
  • 00:26:40
    the revision description so that anyone who's
  • 00:26:44
    searching for the congestion cost savings test in the future would hopefully have
  • 00:26:47
    a very straightforward
  • 00:26:51
    way of identifying that those two white papers would be applied to the test
  • 00:26:55
    by just looking at that revision description and those the
  • 00:26:59
    latter white paper is currently posted to the planning page of the ERCOT website
  • 00:27:03
    and the congestion cost savings test evaluation guideline will be posted to
  • 00:27:07
    the planning page of the ERCOT website once it is finalized,
  • 00:27:11
    which I would anticipate it to be essentially
  • 00:27:15
    in near final form. I think we would just want to await the outcome of
  • 00:27:18
    this NPRR before posting.
  • 00:27:21
    So. Yes, and just to mirror what
  • 00:27:25
    Diana was saying before, ERCOT would request urgency
  • 00:27:29
    for NPRR1247 so that PRS
  • 00:27:33
    can consider today both the language as
  • 00:27:36
    well as the impact assessment with
  • 00:27:41
    the hope that we could,
  • 00:27:44
    if PRS agreed, then consider this at TAC
  • 00:27:48
    next week. Matt, thank you. Can you
  • 00:27:52
    also speak to the fact of how typically reference documents
  • 00:27:56
    and materials are not typically captured in protocol language
  • 00:28:00
    and why ERCOT would rather have
  • 00:28:04
    the reference to the white papers in the
  • 00:28:08
    revision description rather than the actual protocols and
  • 00:28:11
    kind of the thinking behind that? Yes,
  • 00:28:15
    certainly. So it's not our
  • 00:28:19
    typical practice to refer to white papers in the protocols.
  • 00:28:24
    I think that there are to this.
  • 00:28:28
    There's a question as to whether that would make the
  • 00:28:31
    white paper binding by referring to it in the white papers.
  • 00:28:37
    There was a discussion before of what we mean by binding.
  • 00:28:40
    And in this sense what we mean by binding is something
  • 00:28:45
    that is approved by the stakeholders and the PUC
  • 00:28:49
    and therefore is legally binding. The white papers
  • 00:28:53
    are binding in the sense that that is the
  • 00:28:57
    way that ERCOT is committing to perform more detailed aspects
  • 00:29:01
    of any process.
  • 00:29:04
    So we felt that rather
  • 00:29:07
    than making them binding by referring
  • 00:29:11
    to a white paper and the protocols, if the
  • 00:29:14
    stakeholders felt that the level of detail that was in a white paper was appropriate
  • 00:29:19
    to make binding in that legal sense, then the better
  • 00:29:22
    way to tackle that would be just to put those details into the
  • 00:29:25
    protocols or another binding document rather than a reference to a white paper.
  • 00:29:30
    ERCOT doesn't believe that in these two white papers instances
  • 00:29:34
    that that is appropriate for the for that level of detail to be in
  • 00:29:37
    the protocols. But nevertheless that would
  • 00:29:41
    be. That would be the distinction. And for the latter of those
  • 00:29:44
    two white papers, the weather uncertainty and transmission
  • 00:29:48
    outages on economic project evaluations white
  • 00:29:51
    paper, we do believe that ERCOT has
  • 00:29:55
    discretion whether or not to take those into
  • 00:29:58
    consideration because those are
  • 00:30:02
    falling under the PUCS Rule 16,
  • 00:30:05
    Tac 25, 101. There's some language in the economic
  • 00:30:09
    planning provision of that rule that makes
  • 00:30:12
    discretionary the consideration of adequately quantifiable
  • 00:30:17
    direct and indirect costs and benefits attributable to a transmission project.
  • 00:30:22
    And because the PUC's rule uses the word may,
  • 00:30:27
    that makes the consideration of those aspects
  • 00:30:31
    discretionary. And therefore, for that
  • 00:30:34
    additional reason, ERCOT believes that
  • 00:30:38
    white paper for weather uncertainty and transmission outages is appropriate
  • 00:30:41
    to remain discretionary rather than binding.
  • 00:30:46
    Thank you for that clarification, Matt. I know that that was one of the questions
  • 00:30:50
    that we heard at ROS last week was whether
  • 00:30:54
    or not that that was a new process or something that ERCOT's been doing for
  • 00:30:57
    a while. So thank you for that clarification,
  • 00:31:00
    Martha. Thanks, Dinah. Yep. Martha Henson with Oncor. I appreciate
  • 00:31:03
    the overview of those comments, Matt. I feel like these are a good
  • 00:31:07
    landing spot for this NPRR. I do actually
  • 00:31:11
    share some of ERCOT's concerns about clogging up the protocols with
  • 00:31:15
    references to white papers and starting a precedent like that.
  • 00:31:19
    And I think that these comments are a good solution to that by, you know,
  • 00:31:22
    putting it in some of the preliminary sections of the NPRR.
  • 00:31:26
    So with that, I make a motion to grant urgent
  • 00:31:30
    status to 1247 and to recommend approval of the ERCOT
  • 00:31:33
    November 11th comments and send it to TAC.
  • 00:31:37
    Okay, second okay, so we have a motion by Martha Henson
  • 00:31:41
    for urgency and to approve. We have a second by Eric Leakey.
  • 00:31:51
    Corey, do I need a pause or can I keep going? Do we need a.
  • 00:31:56
    Because we have a queue still building. Let me build the ballot
  • 00:32:00
    for that one. Okay. I'm going to take a wild guess that's not going to
  • 00:32:02
    be a combo ballot item, so I'm going to build a separate ballot.
  • 00:32:06
    Okay, we're going to keep working on the queue.
  • 00:32:10
    Alex Miller hi,
  • 00:32:14
    thank you. I just did want to clarify a couple of those points.
  • 00:32:19
    I thought we had clarified it, but the concepts
  • 00:32:23
    seem to be sticking. We appreciate ERCOT adding
  • 00:32:28
    the white papers to the preamble that help
  • 00:32:32
    preamble. That does help with the transparency
  • 00:32:37
    piece of the motivation for having that in there. I the
  • 00:32:41
    joint commenters, adding those directly into the protocols
  • 00:32:45
    at this time, you know, was not to
  • 00:32:49
    make them binding. They're not binding. We changed the language
  • 00:32:52
    to may in the sentence as ERCOT
  • 00:32:56
    staff requested. So that was that issue keeps being said.
  • 00:33:00
    But that was not a motivation. The besides transparency,
  • 00:33:04
    that was one motivation. The second motivation was because
  • 00:33:07
    this NPRR is great.
  • 00:33:11
    It does need to move forward. Unfortunately, we did not have enough
  • 00:33:15
    time for stakeholders to really discuss the details of the issues
  • 00:33:19
    and it's not finished. So the
  • 00:33:23
    adding in those white papers, which I understand that's not we're moving forward with
  • 00:33:27
    But I just want it to be understood the reason we added
  • 00:33:31
    those was as a compromise because this language is not finished.
  • 00:33:35
    We need more work. And having a placeholder in there
  • 00:33:39
    until that work is done was what we were trying to accomplish there.
  • 00:33:43
    So it was not an attempt to make it binding. It was not an attempt
  • 00:33:46
    to set a new precedent or clutter up the protocols.
  • 00:33:50
    It was just a compromise, an attempt at a compromise to
  • 00:33:54
    allow this to move forward with a placeholder for
  • 00:33:58
    the work that remains to be done. So I just wanted to
  • 00:34:01
    clarify that again. Thank you. Thank you Alex.
  • 00:34:04
    And Katie, before I let you go, it I
  • 00:34:08
    just the two PR teal ROS references that I was
  • 00:34:11
    making reference to 1247, it was on the October 3rd
  • 00:34:15
    and November 7th ROS meetings and whether not they were
  • 00:34:18
    taken up, Those were the two references to the 1247
  • 00:34:22
    references. But go ahead Katie.
  • 00:34:26
    Thanks Diana. But I mean really, ROS had one meeting
  • 00:34:30
    to discuss everything because it needed to go to PLWG as
  • 00:34:33
    a formal referral. So. But setting that aside,
  • 00:34:37
    I wanted to talk about some luminant comments that were going to be
  • 00:34:40
    filed very shortly and
  • 00:34:44
    we still have some major concerns that I wanted to lay
  • 00:34:48
    out ahead of those comments being posted.
  • 00:34:51
    So again, we've talked about this sport before, but this expedited
  • 00:34:56
    manner that the NPRR is going through could
  • 00:35:00
    yield some suboptimal outcomes as we're seeing folks
  • 00:35:04
    talk about right now. You know, there's a lot left still to be
  • 00:35:08
    worked out. And then at a more fundamental level
  • 00:35:12
    we feel like the selected consumer benefits test framework
  • 00:35:17
    goes beyond what was in SB 1281 and what
  • 00:35:21
    was included in 25 101. And then
  • 00:35:24
    two changes that we're looking to make is
  • 00:35:28
    that we're proposing that ERCOT use a 25
  • 00:35:32
    factor to discount the benefits calculated by the proposed
  • 00:35:36
    cost savings test. Given that the test undervalues
  • 00:35:39
    congestion hedging and we provide language
  • 00:35:43
    to add the factor that would be applied to
  • 00:35:46
    the calculated system wide consumer
  • 00:35:50
    energy cost reduction before it's used to determine the economic benefits.
  • 00:35:55
    So I do have language for that. If anyone be willing to
  • 00:35:59
    consider a desktop edit in advance of those comments
  • 00:36:03
    being filed. And then lastly, we still have
  • 00:36:07
    a concern about this assumption of using the 2% inflation rate
  • 00:36:12
    and think that the after tax weighted average cost of capital would be
  • 00:36:16
    more appropriate. And for all those reasons we'll
  • 00:36:20
    be voting no on this. But again, if you'd be open
  • 00:36:23
    to the language on this discount factor, I could talk about that in more detail.
  • 00:36:30
    Thank you Bill Barnes. Thanks Diana.
  • 00:36:34
    We abstained at ROS on
  • 00:36:37
    this and filed comments.
  • 00:36:41
    Share the views from Alex and Katie as well
  • 00:36:45
    on the timing of this.
  • 00:36:48
    ERCOT did accept a handful of our changes,
  • 00:36:52
    which we appreciate. On improving transparency of the
  • 00:36:56
    information regarding what's used in the modeling.
  • 00:37:00
    A little more description on the actual math that's
  • 00:37:04
    being done to calculate the congestion cost savings. We think that's
  • 00:37:07
    helpful, although agree with Alex is a lot more detail
  • 00:37:10
    that needs to be included in the white papers on
  • 00:37:15
    the methodology. Our primary concern which leads to our
  • 00:37:18
    abstention is the fact that one of the
  • 00:37:21
    major parts of this process which also impacts
  • 00:37:25
    the other transmission planning processes is the fact that in
  • 00:37:29
    the transmission models there's not enough generation to serve the load.
  • 00:37:32
    And the process for how we resolve that is yet to be defined.
  • 00:37:36
    That is a major component for how this process works. Or uncomfortable
  • 00:37:41
    voting yes on this without knowing how all the parts and pieces
  • 00:37:45
    work. And ERCOT has acknowledged
  • 00:37:48
    the other transmission planning processes is the fact that in
  • 00:37:52
    the transmission models there's not enough generation to serve the load.
  • 00:37:56
    And the process for how we resolve that is yet to be defined.
  • 00:37:59
    That is a major component for how this process works. Or uncomfortable
  • 00:38:03
    voting yes on this without knowing how all the parts and pieces
  • 00:38:06
    work. And ERCOT has acknowledged
  • 00:38:10
    that that is a void yet to be filled
  • 00:38:14
    and that will be addressed later through a separate
  • 00:38:18
    planning guide, revision request and discussion, which we look forward
  • 00:38:22
    to. But at this point we're just not comfortable enough to get to a yes,
  • 00:38:26
    so we'll be abstaining. Thanks. Thank you,
  • 00:38:31
    Bill. We appreciate it. Nabaraj,
  • 00:38:34
    Diana, so quick question for ERCOT.
  • 00:38:38
    So about the protocol versus white paper thing.
  • 00:38:41
    A little bit confused over the stakeholders,
  • 00:38:45
    so just want to make sure these white paper things are
  • 00:38:50
    just the extended person of the protocol or
  • 00:38:53
    can you clarify on that one how far they
  • 00:38:58
    can go? Matt,
  • 00:39:02
    do you want to speak to that? Certainly.
  • 00:39:05
    So I think that the way that ERCOT views white papers is
  • 00:39:09
    that those are not white papers, are not a
  • 00:39:13
    document that is approved through the
  • 00:39:17
    stakeholder ERCOT Board PUC process. They're a document that
  • 00:39:20
    ERCOT generates to provide more
  • 00:39:24
    granular details about how ERCOT intends
  • 00:39:27
    to perform any given process
  • 00:39:31
    you know, ERCOT wouldn't put that out there if that wasn't the way that we're
  • 00:39:35
    committing to perform something, perform a
  • 00:39:38
    process. So both of those white papers in this case
  • 00:39:42
    are the ways that ERCOT is proposing to perform
  • 00:39:46
    that more detailed aspects of the congestion cost savings test and the
  • 00:39:51
    when to take into account those additional
  • 00:39:55
    weather scenarios and transmission outages and apply those to the test
  • 00:40:00
    Sorry, does that answer your question, Nambaraj?
  • 00:40:02
    Yes, thank you. Thank you. Certainly.
  • 00:40:07
    And Matt, y'all noted that they that the applicability
  • 00:40:12
    for the transmission planning there will be a PGRR that will address that
  • 00:40:16
    component and highlight those details and that will be forthcoming,
  • 00:40:20
    correct? That's right.
  • 00:40:23
    The ERCOT agrees
  • 00:40:27
    that looking at Planning Guide Section 6.9 holistically,
  • 00:40:32
    not just for the congestion cost savings test, but for economic
  • 00:40:36
    and reliability planning generally is appropriate.
  • 00:40:40
    And we have committed to bringing a PGRR for that section
  • 00:40:43
    in the near future. Thank you.
  • 00:40:48
    Ping.
  • 00:40:53
    Yes. So I just want to clarify a
  • 00:40:56
    little bit about the 2 comments Katie
  • 00:41:00
    just made about the consumer energy
  • 00:41:04
    reduction cost we adopted to use
  • 00:41:08
    for the congestion cost savings test.
  • 00:41:11
    So even though in this test the impact
  • 00:41:16
    of the CRR hedging was not considered,
  • 00:41:20
    but that was based on the recommendation after
  • 00:41:24
    looking at information available to ERCOT.
  • 00:41:28
    So E3 did carefully review what
  • 00:41:32
    we have, what we don't have, and then they found
  • 00:41:36
    that we don't have sufficient information to
  • 00:41:40
    be able to adequately
  • 00:41:45
    accurate enough to account of the impact.
  • 00:41:49
    So that's why they recommended at this moment,
  • 00:41:52
    due to the lack of information, to not
  • 00:41:56
    to. In order to. Not to introduce
  • 00:41:59
    noises or uncertainties in the evaluation
  • 00:42:03
    results, it will be best to leave that part
  • 00:42:06
    out. So I think those, all those were
  • 00:42:10
    presented last September at
  • 00:42:13
    the PLWG meeting when they presented
  • 00:42:17
    their recommendations at that time.
  • 00:42:21
    And the second thing I think for the inflation
  • 00:42:25
    rate, 2%, that is what we're using,
  • 00:42:28
    but we committed to update that
  • 00:42:32
    based on stakeholder feedback and also I want to
  • 00:42:35
    make sure that the 2% inflation rate we have,
  • 00:42:39
    it purely is used to reflect
  • 00:42:43
    the time value of money for
  • 00:42:46
    all the other different aspect like the asset
  • 00:42:50
    depreciation taxes and
  • 00:42:54
    also the equity debt, all those information,
  • 00:42:58
    those were all built in in the financial assumption
  • 00:43:02
    analysis which ERCOT performs each year
  • 00:43:06
    that resulted in this 12.9%
  • 00:43:10
    and 12.6% of ratio
  • 00:43:14
    that a project needs to meet before
  • 00:43:18
    they are considered as satisfying the economic
  • 00:43:22
    test criteria. So I just want to make sure make those
  • 00:43:26
    clarifying comments. Thanks.
  • 00:43:30
    Thank you, ping. That's helpful. Mr.
  • 00:43:33
    Barnes. Yeah, I had more of a request I
  • 00:43:36
    guess. And a question from Matt, Matt, the PGRR
  • 00:43:41
    that you guys are working on to make changes
  • 00:43:45
    or review Planning Guide 6.9.
  • 00:43:49
    I think it would be good for us to have a discussion before you
  • 00:43:52
    file something somewhere at maybe rpg,
  • 00:43:57
    probably rpg. Just because part of our concern is that
  • 00:44:00
    what's been expressed verbally by ERCOT on how they plan to address
  • 00:44:04
    the supply and demand gap in the planning models is something that we don't
  • 00:44:08
    fully agree with and we think there are other ways to address that issue.
  • 00:44:11
    So we would just hope that ERCOT
  • 00:44:15
    would tee up a discussion with stakeholders before filing the PGRR.
  • 00:44:18
    Thanks.
  • 00:44:22
    Go ahead. Yeah, this Prabhujana
  • 00:44:26
    Mercat. So we intend to do that. So we are still working on,
  • 00:44:30
    you know, some of the concepts and language, how to do that. Once we
  • 00:44:33
    have that, we intend to bring it to the stakeholders discussions
  • 00:44:37
    wherever needs to happen. PLWG.
  • 00:44:40
    Roz. Okay, thanks, Prabhu. Thank you.
  • 00:44:46
    We appreciate that. That'll be helpful to be
  • 00:44:49
    able to try to capture as much as we can before it's actually filed.
  • 00:44:52
    Thank you, Katie.
  • 00:44:56
    Yeah, Bill, thanks for your comment. I would
  • 00:44:59
    request that it go to PLWG. At least there's a reporting up
  • 00:45:03
    to ROS on that. And I think Alex previously asked
  • 00:45:07
    ERCOT to commit to reporting on the Progress
  • 00:45:10
    monthly appeal. So I think that's a good path.
  • 00:45:14
    And I think Ping's response to what I suggested
  • 00:45:18
    being added just shows that there needs to be more
  • 00:45:21
    work on this. So I didn't hear a commitment from her
  • 00:45:25
    on the discount factor, but again, we'll have those
  • 00:45:28
    in comments and I would like to see us start working on
  • 00:45:32
    getting this to be more accurate.
  • 00:45:37
    Alex.
  • 00:45:43
    I was just clarifying that it was the PLWG would be
  • 00:45:47
    the right meetings to discuss it. Okay, thank you.
  • 00:45:54
    Any other thoughts or comments before we vote?
  • 00:45:59
    Okay, so Corey has our motion
  • 00:46:03
    on the screen to grant urgent status and recommend approval
  • 00:46:07
    as amended by the November 11th ERCOT comments.
  • 00:46:11
    Motion by Martha Hinton. Second by Eric Lee
  • 00:46:15
    Corey. All right. On the motion we will start up with
  • 00:46:18
    consumers with Eric Goff.
  • 00:46:24
    Not seeing Eric with us.
  • 00:46:28
    How about naba? Yes, thank you.
  • 00:46:31
    And John rest for Melissa. Yes, thank you. On to
  • 00:46:34
    our CO ops. Lucas.
  • 00:46:44
    See you're off mute, Lucas, but you might be doubled and take
  • 00:46:48
    in chat.
  • 00:46:54
    How about Blake? Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Eric Blakey.
  • 00:46:58
    Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Wandor Independent
  • 00:47:02
    generators. Andy Epstein. Thanks Corey Q.
  • 00:47:07
    Caitlin.
  • 00:47:10
    Yes, thank you. And I've got
  • 00:47:14
    your no in chat, Lucas. Thank you.
  • 00:47:18
    Katie Rich. No, thank you.
  • 00:47:22
    Thank you. David Mendham.
  • 00:47:24
    Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:47:28
    Under IPMS. John Varnell. Usain.
  • 00:47:33
    Thanks, sir. On to our Ireps Bill Epstein.
  • 00:47:41
    Thank you. Aaron.
  • 00:47:44
    Abstain.
  • 00:47:50
    Thank you. Under IOUs, Martha. Yes,
  • 00:47:53
    thank you. David Withrow.
  • 00:47:57
    Got your yes in chat, David. Thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks, Gordon.
  • 00:48:00
    Thanks, sir. Under Immunis. Diana. Yes,
  • 00:48:03
    thank you. Ashley? Yes,
  • 00:48:06
    thank you. Anne Faye.
  • 00:48:10
    Yes, thank you, thank you.
  • 00:48:14
    Motion carries 86% for 13 and some
  • 00:48:17
    change against 4 abstentions.
  • 00:48:22
    Thank you everybody.
  • Item 6.15 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
    00:48:32
    Okay, I think that takes us to 1250.
  • 00:48:40
    We tabled this item back in September and we referred it
  • 00:48:44
    over to WMS. WMS unanimously
  • 00:48:48
    endorsed 1250 as submitted.
  • 00:48:54
    Wanted to see what the appetite was to add 1250
  • 00:48:57
    to the combat ballot. If anybody has any thoughts or comments, go ahead.
  • 00:49:01
    Jarres, I had a question about this one.
  • 00:49:04
    There's some language in there that it. That.
  • 00:49:07
    About the effective or about.
  • 00:49:11
    I'm sorry, there's some language in there about
  • 00:49:15
    when the. When it's terminating, when the RPS program is terminating and
  • 00:49:19
    if the effective date isn't until September.
  • 00:49:24
    Would that. It feels like that language needs to be in
  • 00:49:28
    effect sooner. But I'll defer to ERCOT
  • 00:49:32
    or someone else if they disagree.
  • 00:49:38
    Austin, Roselle, go ahead. I may not
  • 00:49:41
    understand your question. However, that date is I believe
  • 00:49:45
    defined in the House bill
  • 00:49:48
    or Senate bill.
  • 00:49:52
    The end date is not determined
  • 00:49:56
    by us or on system implementation. It is House Bill 1500.
  • 00:49:59
    I think that's where that specific. Yes. So I
  • 00:50:03
    guess is ERCOT's view that because it's defined in the House bill, it doesn't matter
  • 00:50:07
    if there's some language in here that it's no longer
  • 00:50:11
    effective or that strikes the effective date.
  • 00:50:14
    I can go find the language. I'm sorry, hold on,
  • 00:50:25
    I'll just chime in that procedurally the hope would be that this
  • 00:50:29
    NPRR moves through, passes through PRS,
  • 00:50:32
    hits TAC board commission, gets approved ahead of September 1st,
  • 00:50:36
    at which point all of these edits from 1250 would be
  • 00:50:40
    in gray boxes to say effective September 1st. Delete a
  • 00:50:43
    whole bunch of stuff that doesn't apply anymore because the program's gone.
  • 00:50:46
    So it would in a sense be approved sooner. You would see that stuff
  • 00:50:50
    in the protocols. It would just all be gray boxed until you hit the Magic
  • 00:50:54
    Date of September 1st, which as Austin said,
  • 00:50:57
    wasn't picked by us, it was set by the ledge.
  • 00:51:07
    We can give you some more time.
  • 00:51:10
    No, go ahead. Let me go to bill on
  • 00:51:13
    1243 while we look into
  • 00:51:17
    1250 since we're on 1250. Sorry,
  • 00:51:20
    the. Some of the concerns we had was that,
  • 00:51:24
    that the confidentiality provisions
  • 00:51:28
    would not become un gray boxed or
  • 00:51:31
    removed prior to the deletion of the program.
  • 00:51:35
    So I just want to make sure that. I thought we fixed that in
  • 00:51:39
    ERCOT's comment set. So just to make sure that is, that is indeed the
  • 00:51:43
    case is we're not going to like make a bunch of information
  • 00:51:46
    suddenly open to the public before the program is
  • 00:51:50
    terminated and deleted and removed. So I'LL just make sure we're clear on that one.
  • Item 6.13 - NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities
    00:51:54
    And then on 1243,
  • 00:51:57
    I'm trying to remember what happened last month. Oncor filed comments a
  • 00:52:02
    couple of days before PRS, which I think we were in agreement on
  • 00:52:06
    as a body. It looks like it remained tabled for some
  • 00:52:09
    reason. I just wonder if that one's ready to go as well.
  • 00:52:13
    Martha, you want to take that question? Yeah,
  • 00:52:16
    thanks, Bill, for bringing it up. I had that on my radar, too. So,
  • 00:52:19
    yeah, we reviewed the Oncor comments last month, which essentially
  • 00:52:23
    sort of proposed a more streamlined notification process for
  • 00:52:27
    ERCOT disclosures to ferc, NURC and tre,
  • 00:52:31
    and I haven't seen any new comments filed on this one.
  • 00:52:34
    So I was wondering if we could move the Oncor comments forward on
  • 00:52:38
    the combo ballot today. Okay. What are Everybody's thoughts on 1243
  • 00:52:42
    with the Oncor comments? Okay.
  • 00:52:47
    Any concerns? Thoughts? Okay, I'm getting head nods. So Corey,
  • 00:52:51
    could we add 1243? Okay. All right,
  • 00:52:54
    John, Russ, back to 1250.
  • 00:52:58
    Yes, thank you all. So in
  • 00:53:02
    section 2.1, the compliance premium definition, it says that
  • 00:53:06
    compliance premiums will not be awarded after December 31,
  • 00:53:09
    2024. It seems like that language should have an earlier effective date than September
  • 00:53:13
    1st, consistent with HB 1500.
  • 00:53:26
    I don't know if Catherine
  • 00:53:30
    Gross or have an appointment on the
  • 00:53:34
    phone. Hi, Diana, I'm here.
  • 00:53:37
    Can you hear okay? Hi, Catherine. Yes, please go ahead.
  • 00:53:41
    Okay. Well, I was just waiting for the language to be.
  • 00:53:47
    I'm here as well, too, if needed.
  • 00:53:51
    Great. We got both of you all. Please go ahead.
  • 00:53:57
    I think it was. I'm sorry, I'm not in the room. Was it Josh?
  • 00:54:00
    Can you repeat your question, please? It's John.
  • 00:54:05
    No, no, you're fine. It feels like that language
  • 00:54:09
    should be effective earlier because compliance
  • 00:54:15
    premiums will not be awarded after December 31st of
  • 00:54:18
    this year.
  • 00:54:25
    Sorry to interrupt. Are you saying because we have the language at the top talking
  • 00:54:30
    about next year and then we have language in the NPRR Talking about 2024,
  • 00:54:34
    there's a conflict.
  • 00:54:38
    Yes. I was concerned that if the effective date of
  • 00:54:41
    this NPRR is September 1,
  • 00:54:45
    2025, then this
  • 00:54:48
    language that compliance premiums will not be awarded for this year,
  • 00:54:51
    it seems like this language should be effective.
  • 00:54:55
    When the NPRR reported waiting
  • 00:54:58
    until September for this language to be effective.
  • 00:55:04
    Yeah, go ahead, Kevin. I was
  • 00:55:07
    2025, then this
  • 00:55:11
    language that compliance premiums will not be awarded for this year,
  • 00:55:16
    it seems like this language should be effective.
  • 00:55:19
    When the NPRR reported waiting
  • 00:55:24
    until September for this language to be effective.
  • 00:55:32
    Yeah, go ahead, Kevin. I was
  • 00:55:36
    gonna say that I understand what he's asking. He's saying since it's.
  • 00:55:39
    We had just said it wouldn't be un grade boxed until September
  • 00:55:43
    of 2025. Then at that point,
  • 00:55:52
    that first part of the sentence seems
  • 00:55:56
    Too late or would be kind of moot at that point.
  • 00:55:59
    I'm checking something real quick, but y'all can keep talking. I wonder
  • 00:56:03
    if we have this same language already in place.
  • 00:56:06
    Catherine, with the other
  • 00:56:14
    rec. NPRR, but let me do some research.
  • 00:56:16
    Okay, thank you. What we can do is we can give you guys some time
  • 00:56:20
    and keep going through the list and then we'll circle back.
  • 00:56:23
    Calvin, Katherine, and then we'll check with you all
  • 00:56:28
    in a few minutes if that sounds okay. Yeah, that's fine.
  • 00:56:32
    Okay, thank you both.
  • 00:56:35
    I don't know how much of a break you're going to get because the next
  • 00:56:38
    Katherine, did you want to speak to the comments that ERCOT filed last week?
  • 00:56:42
    Sure, yeah. Just as a reminder, this NPRR is
  • 00:56:47
    really talking about the section of our protocols that
  • 00:56:50
    talks about pre notice.
  • 00:56:53
    So being able to provide ECII or
  • 00:56:57
    protected information under certain conditions.
  • 00:56:59
    But first providing notice to
  • 00:57:03
    the disclosing parties where that information is going to
  • 00:57:07
    be provided to a third party. And so
  • 00:57:11
    this NPRR was getting rid of the pre notice requirement
  • 00:57:15
    when ERCOT is providing ECII
  • 00:57:18
    or PI to its own vendors.
  • 00:57:22
    But we also introduced this new concept of a
  • 00:57:26
    research and innovation partner. And there was some feedback from
  • 00:57:29
    Oncor at a prior PRS meeting about
  • 00:57:34
    just wanting to make sure it was a little bit more transparent the
  • 00:57:37
    kinds of information that we thought
  • 00:57:42
    was going to be sharing with those research and innovation partners.
  • 00:57:45
    So we've added a new section right
  • 00:57:51
    here that we would, we could satisfy
  • 00:57:55
    the pre notice obligations by having a website
  • 00:57:58
    that explains the categories of information
  • 00:58:02
    that is being shared. So what we're envisioning is there
  • 00:58:05
    would be a website that might explain like for
  • 00:58:10
    a project with this university where they're studying
  • 00:58:14
    X topic, ERCOT has disclosed this kind of
  • 00:58:18
    information. And so I
  • 00:58:23
    won't speak for Oncor, but this was sort of a compromise
  • 00:58:27
    solution to address their concerns, I think. And it's
  • 00:58:31
    kind of similar to the position
  • 00:58:34
    or the where stakeholders ended up on 1243
  • 00:58:39
    that was covered earlier. And then another part of the comments
  • 00:58:43
    makes a small clarification I think just to make it more clear
  • 00:58:48
    that a way that notice could be provided by ERCOT
  • 00:58:52
    would be through a market notice.
  • 00:58:55
    So I think that was already clear.
  • 00:59:02
    I'm not sure why it's showing up that way on your screen,
  • 00:59:05
    I guess.
  • 00:59:08
    Oh, because you're showing. Okay. Yeah. We had, in the blue
  • 00:59:11
    lines, we had taken out that piece that says no notice or notification
  • 00:59:15
    can be sent by email, fax or mail. We added it
  • 00:59:20
    in and back in after reflection,
  • 00:59:25
    just to make it clear. It could be that or any other method authorized
  • 00:59:29
    by the protocols, which would include market.
  • 00:59:37
    There's a little bit of. But any.
  • 00:59:43
    Catherine, hold on just a second.
  • 00:59:49
    Okay, I think we have it. It was
  • 00:59:52
    a very neat effect, though, in the room, at least.
  • 00:59:58
    Okay. Catherine, did we capture all of your updates?
  • 01:00:02
    I wanted to make sure we didn't cut you off. I think so. Yep.
  • 01:00:06
    Thank you, Martha. Yeah,
  • 01:00:10
    thanks. I just wanted to fess up to being the stakeholder that had
  • 01:00:13
    some concerns with the way it was originally phrased, as Katherine mentioned
  • 01:00:17
    already, and very appreciative of Katherine and actually
  • 01:00:20
    Doug Fawn talking with us about that.
  • 01:00:23
    And essentially the original
  • 01:00:27
    version of the mtrr, I think, would have eliminated disclosures.
  • 01:00:31
    I mean, notification of disclosures when ECEII
  • 01:00:35
    is provided to research and innovation partners.
  • 01:00:38
    And most of the types of ECEII that are described in the protocols
  • 01:00:42
    are things that TDSPs create. And so we
  • 01:00:46
    still have a strong interest in knowing who has our information
  • 01:00:50
    when ERCOT has a need to provide that to other parties,
  • 01:00:54
    particularly the research and innovation partners. And so I
  • 01:00:57
    appreciate you, Catherine, working with us on this and think
  • 01:01:00
    that it's a good solution so that we can still have some visibility
  • 01:01:04
    into what they're getting and have an avenue to
  • 01:01:07
    know if we see something we don't like, we know what's happening and
  • 01:01:11
    can approach ERCOT about that. So we're supportive of these comments.
  • 01:01:15
    And unless there's other concerns that still need to be resolved,
  • 01:01:18
    we'd be comfortable putting these on the combo ballot for approval as well.
  • 01:01:21
    Thanks. Thanks, Martha. Bill Barnes.
  • 01:01:25
    I had one additional suggestion. Really like the
  • 01:01:28
    comments here. Paragraph 3. We're good with
  • 01:01:32
    maintaining a separate part of the website for these
  • 01:01:36
    posting requirements with a link from a market notice that.
  • 01:01:39
    Actually, the section that you just scrolled away from is what I had a question
  • 01:01:43
    about.
  • 01:01:51
    So if you go back to where you just were.
  • 01:01:55
    Thank you. Under notice or notification,
  • 01:02:00
    it lists facsimile.
  • 01:02:03
    Does anyone do that anymore? I. If he's tried to send us a fax,
  • 01:02:06
    I have no idea where it would go. Is that something we can strike?
  • 01:02:11
    I had the same question, Bill. I didn't know we still had those.
  • 01:02:19
    Catherine, do you have a.
  • 01:02:23
    I know that we have been moving away from facts Ourselves.
  • 01:02:31
    Is it easier? Well,
  • 01:02:35
    yeah, I wonder if it just,
  • 01:02:40
    just saying facts. Go ahead. Yeah. Bill, is your,
  • 01:02:44
    is your thinking if we strike facts, that then leaves like electronic
  • 01:02:48
    mail or US Mail as the options, which then there's
  • 01:02:52
    already existing avenues that we use in 2024.
  • 01:02:56
    Yeah, I guess my suggestion is that we would just delete
  • 01:02:59
    proximity because it's not used anymore.
  • 01:03:03
    And I think I see what you're saying. I think
  • 01:03:06
    if we, if you scroll up a little bit, though, there are other spots
  • 01:03:11
    like the facts issue might be a bigger
  • 01:03:16
    issue than just in that one spot is my is what's giving me
  • 01:03:20
    pause because there's a section if you go up, if you keep
  • 01:03:24
    scrolling up, that talks about the different kinds of
  • 01:03:27
    notice that are acceptable. It looks like email
  • 01:03:32
    and fax and market here.
  • 01:03:35
    We're getting to it. Keep going.
  • 01:03:40
    Yeah. This talks about the timing and if you
  • 01:03:43
    keep going up, I think here it is.
  • 01:03:47
    I'm not sure all the other spots,
  • 01:03:51
    like I haven't done a check, I guess
  • 01:03:55
    of all the other spots in the protocols that might
  • 01:03:59
    specifically say, like court
  • 01:04:04
    issues that arise with this protocol section, you can
  • 01:04:08
    inform ERCOT by email,
  • 01:04:11
    fax or mail. I guess so I guess what
  • 01:04:14
    I'm saying is I agree that no one really uses facts
  • 01:04:18
    anymore, but I don't know if there
  • 01:04:23
    would be like a that would be part of a bigger cleanup NPRR
  • 01:04:26
    to fix all the facts spots in the rest of the protocols,
  • 01:04:30
    but might have to look into that a little bit.
  • 01:04:34
    Okay, I understood. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration.
  • 01:04:38
    If you do transmit information to market participants via fax,
  • 01:04:42
    you might want to do a market notice first so we can go try to
  • 01:04:45
    find it like
  • 01:04:49
    an Easter egg hunt.
  • 01:04:54
    Okay. Doug Fawn.
  • 01:04:59
    Hey, yeah, I was going to just chime in on the fax issue and
  • 01:05:03
    just maybe flag for there is going to be a bigger NPRR
  • 01:05:07
    coming in the future that's going to clean up
  • 01:05:12
    Standard form agreement. And what the reason I wanted to flag that
  • 01:05:15
    is because in the standard form agreement there's a notice section
  • 01:05:19
    and fax is still in there. And so if that's
  • 01:05:23
    something that everybody would like to go away from and kind of
  • 01:05:27
    eliminate, I think that would be a good time to do it
  • 01:05:30
    in that larger NPRR and just because if we delete
  • 01:05:33
    it here, then it's going to be kind of confusing that you all still have
  • 01:05:38
    SFAs on file with us showing a fax number and.
  • 01:05:42
    But then we've deleted fax as being an acceptable method in the
  • 01:05:45
    protocol. So it'd be kind of out of step. But in that larger NPRR,
  • 01:05:49
    we'll be updating protocols, and the SFA is
  • 01:05:53
    kind of a big effort, so just wanted to
  • 01:05:56
    say maybe we put the facts issue on hold and
  • 01:06:01
    look at it again. Maybe that issue comes up.
  • 01:06:09
    Thank you, Doug. That's helpful.
  • 01:06:12
    We had a suggestion for a possible carrier pigeon, but we
  • 01:06:17
    don't want to hold up to SFA.
  • 01:06:22
    Okay. Any other thoughts or comments on 1252?
  • 01:06:30
    Hey. Hey, Doug, while we still have you, do you have an anticipated timeline
  • 01:06:33
    on when you may be presenting that in addition to if y'all
  • 01:06:37
    will expand that to just a language clean above
  • 01:06:40
    facts in general?
  • 01:06:45
    Were you asking when I think that NPRR I was referencing might be coming?
  • 01:06:49
    Yes. Yeah,
  • 01:06:52
    probably. I would say maybe January.
  • 01:06:57
    Maybe. Maybe late. Maybe December, but probably January,
  • 01:07:01
    but sometime not this month for sure.
  • 01:07:07
    Okay, thanks. Yeah, if you get it by Christmas, we'll all read it. But I
  • 01:07:10
    think January sounds good.
  • 01:07:16
    It's the gift that keeps giving.
  • 01:07:20
    Okay.
  • Item 6.17 - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements
    01:07:25
    All right, so 1252,
  • 01:07:29
    everybody's thoughts on we can keep it tabled. We don't have
  • 01:07:33
    to do anything with it, or we can add it to the combo ballot.
  • 01:07:38
    Anybody have any. I think Oncor would be comfortable putting on the combo
  • 01:07:41
    ballot, unless there's other issues that people have that they want to work
  • 01:07:45
    on. I haven't heard of any other than the fax.
  • 01:07:48
    Okay. Yeah,
  • 01:07:52
    this is. Andy, I think comfortable with the combo, too, knowing that we're going to
  • 01:07:55
    do the fax cleanup next year. Yeah. And that would be the
  • 01:07:58
    ERCOT November 8th
  • 01:08:02
    comments. Yeah.
  • 01:08:07
    Corey, we can add this one with the November 8th. Okay.
  • 01:08:14
    Okay. Where does
  • 01:08:18
    that take us?
  • Item 6.15 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination - Added to Combot
    01:08:22
    Are we ready for 1250?
  • 01:08:25
    Yes, we are. All right, perfect. That was
  • 01:08:28
    very excited. We're all awake now. Go ahead.
  • 01:08:33
    So the. I'll start with the language part where we were talking about
  • 01:08:37
    the reference to compliance premiums will not be awarded
  • 01:08:41
    after December 31, 2024. And there is
  • 01:08:45
    an approved NPRR1218 that has that
  • 01:08:48
    exact language in it,
  • 01:08:53
    which will be in force.
  • 01:08:57
    So I'm not sure. I mean, I think things are maybe reworded
  • 01:09:01
    a little bit here in this section for 1250, but if you
  • 01:09:05
    check on 1218, it's got this exact language in there that clearly
  • 01:09:09
    says that the compliance premiums will not be awarded after
  • 01:09:15
    1231, 2024, and that
  • 01:09:19
    would be in section
  • 01:09:24
    14.3.2,
  • 01:09:46
    right there in paragraph two. There you go. So, to Calvin's
  • 01:09:50
    point, this one's already crossed the finish line and been implemented,
  • 01:09:53
    so it's repeating language up in section
  • 01:09:56
    two that to your point, will be in the past, but it's already in
  • 01:10:00
    protocols elsewhere.
  • 01:10:03
    John. Russ, does that address your concerns? Yep. Thank you. Okay,
  • 01:10:06
    perfect. Mr. Blakey, we do apologize.
  • 01:10:10
    You know, we've been trying to do a lot of things rec wise and
  • 01:10:15
    simultaneously, so we tried to minimize these type of confusion.
  • 01:10:18
    But thank you for bringing that to our attention.
  • 01:10:24
    Go ahead, Eric. And what we're approving today,
  • 01:10:27
    does that mean that the note just says it's a
  • 01:10:31
    note? Does that mean it's going into gray box?
  • 01:10:35
    Is that what that. Is that what we're approving?
  • 01:10:38
    Calvin, can you confirm that or Catherine. But this will go into the
  • 01:10:42
    gray box and then it will be taken out of the gray box at
  • 01:10:45
    the time of 2027.
  • 01:10:49
    That was my understand. That was my understanding. And I know we've got Jordan
  • 01:10:53
    there as well. Yep. Who could probably comment on
  • 01:10:56
    that. Jordan's like,
  • 01:11:04
    but yes, this. This language that's modifying the definition of compliance premium would
  • 01:11:08
    be gray boxed until September 1, 2025.
  • 01:11:12
    This is what you'll see if this.
  • 01:11:14
    If action is taken today, you'll see an update in the PRS report that will
  • 01:11:18
    update the baseline, because this is the PRS report from back in September when
  • 01:11:21
    1218 was still in a gray box.
  • 01:11:24
    So 1250 was making red lines to both to keep them harmonized. But in
  • 01:11:28
    the ensuing PRS report, this will come out of the gray box,
  • 01:11:32
    but the same language will be there. So it'll be a. Basically, it'll be a
  • 01:11:35
    new gray box. 12:18 Language will come out. There'll be a new gray box when
  • 01:11:38
    this gets approved for 1250 that adds this language
  • 01:11:42
    in. But as Calvin was saying, the concept of December 31,
  • 01:11:45
    2024, was already added to Section 14 as part of 1218.
  • 01:11:49
    So the only new language is this language about
  • 01:11:54
    premiums expiring December 31st of 27. But thank
  • 01:12:03
    you.
  • 01:12:06
    Okay, so how do we feel on 1250? Do we
  • 01:12:09
    feel like this would be a good combo ballot? Do we have any other thoughts
  • 01:12:12
    or comments or leave it tabled or
  • 01:12:16
    combo Combo. Okay. Corey, can we add 1250
  • 01:12:21
    as well,
  • 01:12:24
    please? Done.
  • Item 6.18 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP
    01:12:27
    Okay. 1253. I believe WMSWG
  • 01:12:32
    is still reviewing that. We tabled this last
  • 01:12:35
    month to give the sponsor some time to file comments. So we'll see if we
  • 01:12:39
    get those soon,
  • 01:12:42
    and then that'll take us to 1255. Caitlin, I know that you're on
  • 01:12:46
    the phone. I believe you're on the phone. Y'all had some
  • Item 6.19 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
    01:12:50
    Okay. 1253. I believe WMSWG
  • 01:12:55
    is still reviewing that. We tabled this last
  • 01:12:58
    month to give the sponsor some time to file comments. So we'll see if we
  • 01:13:01
    get those soon,
  • 01:13:05
    and then that'll take us to 1255. Caitlin, I know that you're on
  • 01:13:08
    the phone. I believe you're on the phone. Y'all had some
  • 01:13:12
    conversations with ERCOT and you were going to request
  • 01:13:16
    that this be tabled I believe. Did you want to speak to that,
  • 01:13:21
    Caitlin? Sure, yeah. So this
  • 01:13:24
    of that kind of longer implementation outlook, we're not on
  • 01:13:28
    a rush on this one. They were agreeable to table and
  • 01:13:32
    I can commit to, you know, having more to
  • 01:13:35
    say on the substance by Next PRS. Either we'll
  • 01:13:39
    file comments or we'll say that we've gotten comfortable
  • 01:13:42
    with ERCOT. So I think my recommendation would be keep
  • 01:13:46
    this table that PRS and then if we
  • 01:13:50
    or anybody else have comments before next PRS, we could
  • 01:13:53
    decide if it needs to be referred or voted on
  • 01:13:57
    then. Okay, great.
  • 01:14:01
    Thank you, Caitlin. And I believe, Corey, you can correct me if I'm wrong,
  • 01:14:04
    but it's already tabled so we don't have to do anything with it today.
  • 01:14:08
    So we can stay here and then we can figure out next time PRS
  • 01:14:12
    meets if there's anything additional we want to do and move forward.
  • 01:14:16
    Okay, John Ross,
  • 01:14:20
    circling back to 12:53. I'm sorry,
  • 01:14:23
    did you say it's being discussed at WWG and ROS or was it
  • 01:14:27
    just one of Those? I thought 1253 was
  • 01:14:30
    just at the Wholesale Market working group. Go ahead, Blake.
  • 01:14:34
    This is Blake. So there was a question asked that
  • 01:14:38
    was kind of related to 1253, but not necessarily
  • 01:14:42
    specific to 1253. So I don't think that one's
  • 01:14:45
    technically tabled with us at WMWG.
  • 01:14:49
    I don't know the status of it in
  • 01:14:53
    ROS or anything like that. So if Katie.
  • 01:14:56
    Katie knows offhand, she says it's not at ROS, so I'm
  • 01:15:00
    not aware that it's officially anywhere
  • 01:15:04
    right now. Okay. I think
  • 01:15:07
    we may just be waiting for comments. So good clarification. Thank you all.
  • 01:15:12
    I know that last, I think last time at PRS, TIEC had some
  • 01:15:16
    thoughts on it and had some questions that we
  • 01:15:19
    wanted to think about and come back to. From our
  • 01:15:23
    perspective, our questions have been addressed and we're open
  • 01:15:27
    to moving it forward if others are ready.
  • 01:15:30
    Okay, so what is everybody else's thoughts
  • 01:15:34
    on 1253? Is this something that
  • 01:15:40
    we want to keep tabled or do we feel like this is something that would
  • 01:15:43
    be able to move forward?
  • 01:15:49
    Do we have the. Do we have an IA for this?
  • 01:15:56
    This one's a market sponsored, so it Won't be done until a
  • 01:16:00
    version of the language is recommended for approval. So if that's
  • 01:16:04
    the question, then yeah, you get your answer.
  • 01:16:07
    Yeah. I think the important thing is we would like to have
  • 01:16:11
    this in effect by June 1, obviously,
  • 01:16:16
    so we may have a little more time, but we need to make sure
  • 01:16:19
    this is in place before June 1, however, we need to do that.
  • 01:16:24
    Thanks. Thanks, Pop.
  • 01:16:28
    Okay, so on 1253,
  • 01:16:32
    we want to leave it here. Combo, say one.
  • 01:16:36
    Okay. To move it on to combo.
  • 01:16:41
    Would that be with the October 10th ERCOT comments?
  • 01:16:45
    Those were filed to Patterson
  • 01:16:49
    and Company. Clean up some references to prices.
  • 01:16:53
    That should really be data and VSR charging instead
  • 01:16:56
    of wsl. Yes. So this would be the version
  • 01:17:00
    with. Yes, you're right, Corey. With the October 10th ERCOT
  • 01:17:03
    comments. And then to Mr.
  • 01:17:06
    Whitmire's point, that would at least get the ball rolling. We'll throw it into Troy's
  • 01:17:10
    lap to say, how much would this cost?
  • 01:17:13
    Okay, all good.
  • 01:17:16
    Okay, let's add that one as well, please. Corey,
  • 01:17:24
    anything else under the tabled items that we need
  • 01:17:29
    to discuss or highlight before we move on to the new language review?
  • Item 7 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
    01:17:35
    Okay,
  • 01:17:39
    so let's see, where are we?
  • Item 7.1 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
    01:17:44
    We have 1256, which is settlement MRA for
  • 01:17:48
    energy storage resources. This is coming to us from ERCOT.
  • 01:17:52
    It's the first time that it's been here.
  • 01:17:55
    I don't know if someone from ERCOT would like to speak to
  • 01:17:59
    the proposal.
  • 01:18:08
    I don't see anybody. I know that this
  • 01:18:12
    might be a good table and refer option, but I wanted to see if anybody
  • 01:18:16
    else had thoughts on keeping
  • 01:18:20
    it here or if this would be worth having.
  • 01:18:23
    Maybe PRS, take a look at this WMS.
  • 01:18:29
    Sorry, I don't see Ino on the
  • 01:18:32
    line. But this is similar to some of the other NPRRs you all seen
  • 01:18:36
    come through where lots of protocol language
  • 01:18:40
    has existed referring to what a generation resource would do. And we've been able
  • 01:18:43
    to lean on that for batteries because batteries had to register as both a generation
  • 01:18:47
    resource and a load resource. As such, when a lot of the MRA language was
  • 01:18:50
    drafted, it was able to use generation resource. So now
  • 01:18:54
    as we're moving to a single model world along with RTC which will
  • 01:18:57
    fix everything, there's lots of places where the existing MRA
  • 01:19:01
    stuff that's still in gray boxes needs to be updated to now reference generation
  • 01:19:05
    resource or an esr. So lots of Ino and Maggie
  • 01:19:09
    formulas. So if this got a table and refer to WMS for them to
  • 01:19:12
    double check the math, I think that would be fine. I'M seeing some head nodding.
  • 01:19:17
    Okay, so let's add that as
  • 01:19:21
    well. Corey, please.
  • Item 7.2 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
    01:19:25
    All right, and then that will take us to 1257.
  • 01:19:30
    This is also coming to us from ERCOT. This is
  • 01:19:34
    establishing a maximum limit on the amount of responsive that a resource can
  • 01:19:37
    provide using pfr.
  • 01:19:44
    We did have some ROS comments asking for tabling I believe for pdcwg.
  • 01:19:50
    Yeah, this one has a related NOGRR, so ROS will
  • 01:19:54
    be looking at that side anyway so table and referring over to them.
  • 01:19:57
    But I'll pause if Nitika or one of her crew's on to explain
  • 01:20:00
    this one.
  • 01:20:07
    Go ahead Nitika. Thank you Nadeka,
  • 01:20:15
    go ahead.
  • 01:20:20
    Let's see, can you hear me? Yes,
  • 01:20:24
    perfect. Sorry, I was double muted.
  • 01:20:29
    This NPRR is an outcome of some work that
  • 01:20:32
    was kicked off a few years ago. We worked with a consultant
  • 01:20:37
    GE. We had a workshop sharing GE's
  • 01:20:41
    results and recommendations and specifically
  • 01:20:45
    this NPRR addresses one
  • 01:20:49
    of the recommendations that came out from GE,
  • 01:20:53
    specifically helping us address the risk of common mode failure.
  • 01:20:57
    So if a resource carrying RRS is unable to
  • 01:21:01
    provide that service or response for whatever reason,
  • 01:21:05
    there is a potential that we may violate our NRC requirements.
  • 01:21:10
    So the GE came up with a mechanism of quantifying
  • 01:21:14
    a limit and we've expanded that concept
  • 01:21:19
    through this NPRR we proposing to implement
  • 01:21:23
    it is through a static limit that
  • 01:21:26
    is derived based off of studies that
  • 01:21:30
    ERCOT would conduct. The static limit would be
  • 01:21:34
    imposed as a part of the process
  • 01:21:38
    ERCOT uses to establish limits for providing RRS.
  • 01:21:42
    So this is all codified in an attachment in the operating guide
  • 01:21:46
    that Corey referred to. So there is a companion NOGRR where
  • 01:21:49
    you can see exactly how this
  • 01:21:54
    particular per resource limit would apply.
  • 01:21:58
    Based off of the studies that we've done and the trends we've seen,
  • 01:22:02
    we are recommending 157 megawatt limit and
  • 01:22:08
    really the limit would again be a per resource limit. So there can
  • 01:22:12
    be multiple resources within a station that can
  • 01:22:16
    qualify to provide RRS up to the limit.
  • 01:22:19
    Now the reasoning for so this is particularly
  • 01:22:24
    important to note. This is tied to some questions we had received back when
  • 01:22:27
    we were even scoping this work and
  • 01:22:31
    where GE landed at least in thinking
  • 01:22:34
    through the question around whether there should be a limit that applies to a station
  • 01:22:38
    or behind the POI was from a perspective of common
  • 01:22:42
    mode risk assessment, we expect resources all
  • 01:22:46
    even that are situated within a station to each have their own
  • 01:22:50
    controls, logic, separate and independent from the neighboring unit
  • 01:22:55
    within the station. And really strictly from a perspective
  • 01:22:59
    of an event that could impact response,
  • 01:23:03
    we would expect the most probable event
  • 01:23:06
    would be the loss lack of response on
  • 01:23:10
    a unit would be limited to just that unit and not the rest of
  • 01:23:14
    the resources within the substance station.
  • 01:23:17
    So based off of that the limit would being proposed would be
  • 01:23:21
    a resource for specific limit.
  • 01:23:25
    I know the ROS did recommend for the PDC to look
  • 01:23:28
    at this. I'm super very curious if
  • 01:23:31
    there are any folks who review it and if they have any feedback
  • 01:23:36
    for us regarding the language that we propose. We certainly want
  • 01:23:39
    to hear, we certainly want to know
  • 01:23:42
    that so that we can finesse this. This is tied to a reliability concern.
  • 01:23:47
    So we do want to see this keep moving at a,
  • 01:23:50
    at a set pace and not be held up. And I'll
  • 01:23:54
    pause. Thank you Nevika Caitlin
  • 01:24:02
    Thanks Diana. So I had
  • 01:24:06
    raised a couple of questions about this at
  • 01:24:10
    ROS but I did want to say that I've worked with ERCOT and
  • 01:24:13
    thank you for the time there and we are supportive
  • 01:24:17
    of this NPRR and the associated.
  • 01:24:21
    I guess it's a NOGRR but
  • 01:24:25
    we, you know the first concern was whether
  • 01:24:29
    this was a limit at the resource or at the point of
  • 01:24:32
    interconnect and my understanding continues to be it
  • 01:24:36
    you're looking for the point of failure. So it's a resource
  • 01:24:39
    regardless of how many resources are at the point of interconnect.
  • 01:24:43
    I think the language is sufficient to address
  • 01:24:47
    that concern. And then we had some kind of regulatory
  • 01:24:51
    certainty concerns over having the
  • 01:24:54
    number be able to be changed with the ancillary service methodology. But I
  • 01:24:58
    was able to work with Nitika and I think the
  • 01:25:02
    conditions that would cause, you know, the kind of change in number,
  • 01:25:06
    the kind of swinging number that I am would be concerned about
  • 01:25:09
    for those purposes is not something that's on any
  • 01:25:13
    kind of near term time horizon. And so I just wanted to
  • 01:25:16
    say, you know we, we have worked with ERCOT on this. It's been discussed on
  • 01:25:19
    and off for years and we are supportive of
  • 01:25:23
    where these revision requests have have gotten to,
  • 01:25:27
    you know and I'll join the ROS and PDC discretionary as well.
  • 01:25:35
    Thank you Caitlin Blake hi Nitika.
  • 01:25:39
    Blake Colt, LCRA. I wanted to see if you could check my understanding
  • 01:25:44
    for thermal resources is the limit the minimum of 20%
  • 01:25:49
    HSL or 157 megawatts?
  • 01:25:54
    Is that how this would work? Yes.
  • 01:25:59
    And then for batteries it
  • 01:26:02
    would be similar. The limit is the minimum of 100% of
  • 01:26:06
    HSL or 157 megawatts for batteries.
  • 01:26:09
    I would replace the word 100%
  • 01:26:13
    with verified droop performance but typically it would be close to
  • 01:26:17
    that 100% number. Okay,
  • 01:26:20
    that's helpful. Thank you.
  • 01:26:27
    Okay.
  • 01:26:30
    All right, we have an empty queue.
  • 01:26:34
    Looks like we'll have more conversation and we'll come back to.
  • 01:26:38
    We added this one on the combo ballot, right? We are the table
  • 01:26:42
    and refer over yeah, as a table and refer to ROS
  • 01:26:46
    unless. Okay. Feel strongly otherwise but since the no is already there
  • 01:26:49
    anywhere PDCB PDCWG is going to be talking about it anyway
  • 01:26:54
    and ROS endorsements really important.
  • 01:26:58
    Okay so we'll wait for those conversations to continue
  • 01:27:01
    on 1257.
  • 01:27:08
    Then we have two more. We have both of these coming to us
  • Item 7.3 - NPRR1258, TSP Performance Monitoring Update
    01:27:11
    from ERCOT. 1258 Remove some duplicative
  • 01:27:15
    language requirements that are listed in section
  • 01:27:19
    8.3 that are also detailed in section 3.
  • 01:27:23
    And there are some requirements and on
  • 01:27:27
    the modeling we can see here that Corey has up
  • 01:27:30
    on the screen wanted to see if anybody from ERCOT
  • 01:27:34
    wanted to talk about this NPRR and see if anybody had
  • 01:27:38
    any thoughts on 1250.
  • 01:27:42
    Hello. This is. So we submitted this
  • 01:27:46
    to clean up some of the language and performance monitoring section
  • 01:27:52
    in section three, the protocols. It requires that everything that is submitted
  • 01:27:55
    to OTAP via the common information model is submitted
  • 01:27:59
    in accordance to the naming convention. That convention is defined
  • 01:28:03
    in the modeling system and automatically and by validation.
  • 01:28:07
    So we do not all accept submissions with
  • 01:28:10
    that incorrect naming convention where
  • 01:28:13
    applicable. So having a monitoring program is somewhat
  • 01:28:17
    redundant. You know, it creates a compliance potential compliance risk
  • 01:28:21
    for us. Somebody says where is this? But we never
  • 01:28:25
    have a violation at the naming convention because we just don't accept
  • 01:28:28
    submissions on that.
  • 01:28:33
    Thank you. Eric, what are
  • 01:28:36
    Everybody's thoughts on 1258?
  • 01:28:40
    Go ahead, Martha. Yeah, this looked pretty straightforward to
  • 01:28:44
    me. So I'd suggest we put it on the combo ballot and approve it as
  • 01:28:47
    submitted. Okay. Getting some head nods.
  • 01:28:52
    Okay, Corey, let's add 1258 as submitted on the
  • 01:28:55
    combo ballot.
  • 01:29:03
    And then last but not least, we have 1259.
  • Item 7.4 - NPRR1259, Update Section 15 Level Response Language
    01:29:07
    This is clarifying. Retail transaction response
  • 01:29:10
    timing requirements would not be included for the planned
  • 01:29:14
    and approved retail system outage.
  • 01:29:20
    I don't know if anybody from ERCOT wanted to highlight
  • 01:29:25
    1259 or if anybody had any thoughts on this one.
  • 01:29:31
    Kathy?
  • 01:29:34
    Yeah, I spoke to Jordan just before the
  • 01:29:38
    meeting started on this one here. Since WMS
  • 01:29:41
    hasn't had opportunity to review this,
  • 01:29:44
    I was thinking it probably needed to go to them to table and refer
  • 01:29:48
    to WMS. I also wanted to add a comment
  • 01:29:53
    that I did speak to Jordan on about the approved.
  • 01:29:57
    I was thinking that approved by the Tax Subcommittee
  • 01:30:01
    that it reports on these ERCOT
  • 01:30:05
    plan outages. So I think that that needs to be kind of Clarified in
  • 01:30:08
    there, but we can discuss that at WMS as well.
  • 01:30:13
    Thank you, Kathy. Okay, so we can table this one
  • 01:30:17
    and refer over to WMS and let them have those conversations.
  • 01:30:23
    Okay. Any other thoughts on 1259?
  • 01:30:32
    All right, we'll see what we have for our combo ballot.
  • 01:30:49
    Okay, so Corey has our motion on
  • 01:30:53
    the screen for all of the items for the combo
  • 01:30:57
    ballot. We would need a motion in a second.
  • 01:31:01
    Okay, I have a motion by Blake Holt. I have a second by Jim
  • 01:31:04
    Lee.
  • 01:31:14
    Okay, take it away, Corey. Thank you. Thank you all.
  • Item 9 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
    01:31:17
    On the motion to approve the combo ballot, we will start up with the
  • 01:31:20
    residential consumer Eric Goff
  • 01:31:26
    on out their debentures about Nabaraj.
  • 01:31:35
    Yes. Oh, thank you, John Russ. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:31:39
    Thank you. On to our Coops. Lucas,
  • 01:31:52
    I saw you come off mute. There you go. Gotcha. Thank you,
  • 01:31:55
    Blake. Thank you. Yes. Replacement. Thank you, Eric Blakey. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:32:00
    On to our independent generators. Andy. Yes. Thanks, Corey.
  • 01:32:03
    Caitlin.
  • 01:32:07
    Yes, thank you. Katie. Rich.
  • 01:32:11
    Yes, thanks. Thank you. David Mendham.
  • 01:32:21
    David Mindham, you still with us?
  • 01:32:27
    Circle back. Hop to our ipms. How about John Varnell?
  • 01:32:38
    John, you still with us? Yes. Yes. Gotcha.
  • 01:32:41
    Thanks, sir. Having trouble finding the button.
  • 01:32:45
    To our IREPs bill. Yes,
  • 01:32:49
    thank you, Aaron. Yes, thank you.
  • 01:32:52
    Under IOUs. Martha. Yes, thank you,
  • 01:32:55
    David.
  • 01:33:01
    I got your yes in chat, David. Thank you, Jim. Yes,
  • 01:33:04
    thank you, Andra Munis. Diana. Yes,
  • 01:33:08
    thank you, Ashley. Yes, thank you,
  • 01:33:11
    Fei. Yes,
  • 01:33:15
    thank you. Thank you. And then one last call for Lucas.
  • 01:33:20
    No, it wasn't. No, we got Lucas. Did we get Lucas? Yes,
  • 01:33:23
    we did. I'm sorry I
  • 01:33:27
    missed David. Men. Sorry. That's who I was gonna make a last
  • 01:33:31
    call for. I don't see anything in the chat.
  • 01:33:37
    Motion carries unanimously. Thank y'all. Thank you,
  • 01:33:41
    Corey.
  • Item 8 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
    01:33:44
    Okay, so that takes us to other
  • 01:33:47
    business. And I wanted. We wanted to raise
  • 01:33:51
    this to you all. And I don't want anybody to fall out of their chairs,
  • 01:33:56
    but this time at the PRS is
  • 01:33:59
    for everybody. And so we would like to open it up to see.
  • 01:34:03
    There is not going to be a taco meeting in December.
  • 01:34:07
    And so we wanted to raise the possibility and the optionality of not meeting
  • 01:34:11
    in December. If we do have some items that PRS
  • 01:34:14
    would like to discuss in December, we'll certainly be here.
  • 01:34:18
    But just as a note, there is another PRS meeting
  • 01:34:21
    in January that will be scheduled prior to TAC, so we won't
  • 01:34:24
    be missing out on any conversation.
  • 01:34:28
    But if it is needed, we'll certainly be here. But if we don't
  • 01:34:32
    need a December meeting and we wanted to leave that optionality up to you.
  • 01:34:36
    Open to thoughts. Are we about to owe Martha Hanson a
  • 01:34:39
    huge thank you? Yes, we are. There was a.
  • 01:34:43
    There's several WEBEX optionality and
  • 01:34:47
    the ability to cancel a meeting. Yeah, I'd like to
  • 01:34:50
    say NPRR1151, which is the only NPRR I've ever
  • 01:34:54
    gotten approved, still has not actually been effectuated. That's the
  • 01:34:58
    one that allowed. It allows us to cancel monthly PRS meetings.
  • 01:35:01
    Corey, remember that one? Yeah, yeah, yeah.
  • 01:35:04
    I'm. I guess I'm. Look, this is catching me
  • 01:35:07
    out of left field. We have new NPRRs for discussion at the December PRS
  • 01:35:11
    that if December PRS votes on that language, the January PRS
  • 01:35:15
    would approve the IA and they would hit the January TAC meeting. If you
  • 01:35:19
    cancel your December meeting, January PRs would only be able to vote on language,
  • 01:35:23
    and then those things would. Would then slip to a future
  • 01:35:26
    tax. So this isn't exactly the Martha perfect storm of
  • 01:35:30
    we're just meeting to approve ias. That wouldn't go anywhere here.
  • 01:35:34
    We actually have already and that we're not at the cutoff yet,
  • 01:35:37
    so folks can still file new NPRRs. So we have at least two up
  • 01:35:41
    for language. Okay. In addition to anything else that comes through.
  • 01:35:44
    So. So Martha actually did us no good at all in this situation.
  • 01:35:48
    Well, sir, I will not have you besmirch
  • 01:35:52
    one of the finest PRS chairs we've ever had. It just
  • 01:35:56
    so happens that we've been very productive this year. And unlike
  • 01:36:00
    the times when Martha was in the seat and we would end up with
  • 01:36:04
    nothing but IA reviews, and then we're just standing around looking at each other,
  • 01:36:07
    we have a lot of end of year folks are trying to hit their quotas,
  • 01:36:10
    so we have lots of end of year NPRRs popping up. So. Corey, I was
  • 01:36:13
    going to agree with you, but your argument you just made was that
  • 01:36:17
    Diana got us a whole bunch more work actually done
  • 01:36:21
    than when Martha was there. So I'm not real sure.
  • 01:36:24
    I started out kind of being a nice guy here, but this is really going
  • 01:36:27
    down the toilet fast. What happens? Like, we're just trying to have options and this
  • 01:36:31
    just goes downhill so fast. Okay,
  • 01:36:34
    well, if we need a PRS meeting, maybe we can entertain the idea
  • 01:36:38
    of a webex or, you know, you know,
  • 01:36:41
    best of both worlds. We're here to try to capture everything
  • 01:36:46
    so we can still talk about it and we can take a look at what
  • 01:36:49
    needs to be discussed for language. So the IAs
  • 01:36:52
    are ready for January, so we will let you guys
  • 01:36:56
    know. All right, Andy, anything else that
  • Item 10 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
    01:37:00
    we need to add. Okay, guys, thank you all so much. We will
  • 01:37:03
    see you next time.
2024 PRS Combined Ballot 20241114
Nov 13, 2024 - xls - 142.5 KB
2024 PRS NPRR1247 Ballot 20241114
Nov 13, 2024 - xls - 150 KB
02-agenda_prs_20241114
Nov 06, 2024 - docx - 45.5 KB
November-14,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
Nov 06, 2024 - zip - 7.7 MB
November-14,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
Nov 10, 2024 - zip - 7.9 MB
03-draft-minutes-prs-20241017
Nov 06, 2024 - docx - 79.8 KB
November-14,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
Nov 11, 2024 - zip - 8.1 MB
Prs_november_2024_project_update
Nov 11, 2024 - pptx - 219.7 KB
November-14,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
Nov 12, 2024 - zip - 8.5 MB
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:01:32
2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:02:04
2.1 - October 17, 2024
Starts at 00:02:07
3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:02:22
4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
Starts at 00:03:16
5 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:13:51
5.1 - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
Starts at 00:13:55
5.2 - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
Starts at 00:15:26
5.3 - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era*
Starts at 00:15:41
5.4 - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data*
Starts at 00:16:18
6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 00:17:08
6.03 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
Starts at 00:17:27
6.04 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
Starts at 00:18:06
6.05 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
Starts at 00:18:35
6.06 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
Starts at 00:18:58
6.07 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
Starts at 00:19:19
6.08 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
Starts at 00:20:36
6.09 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
Starts at 00:20:52
6.10 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
Starts at 00:21:22
6.14 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects
Starts at 00:21:51
6.15 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
Starts at 00:48:32
6.13 - NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities
Starts at 00:51:54
6.17 - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements
Starts at 01:07:25
6.15 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination - Added to Combot
Starts at 01:08:22
6.18 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP
Starts at 01:12:27
6.19 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
Starts at 01:12:50
7 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 01:17:35
7.1 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
Starts at 01:17:44
7.2 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
Starts at 01:19:25
7.3 - NPRR1258, TSP Performance Monitoring Update
Starts at 01:27:11
7.4 - NPRR1259, Update Section 15 Level Response Language
Starts at 01:29:07
9 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
Starts at 01:31:17
8 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
Starts at 01:33:44
10 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
Starts at 01:37:00