10/07/2024 09:30 AM
Current Time 2:15:20
Duration 2:21:15
Loaded: 95.86%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 5:55
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
    • default, selected
    Search
    • 00:00:01Mister Blakey, you have quorum whenever you're ready to begin. Thank you.
    • 00:00:17Okay, testing the mute buttons. It definitely works.
    • 00:00:21Pamela, can you hear me?
    • 00:00:25Yes, sir. Awesome.
    • Clip 0 - Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Pamela Hanson
      00:00:28 Welcome, everyone to the October Wholesale
    • 00:00:32market subcommittee meeting. Eric Blakey
    • 00:00:36with pertinence this year's chair and want to
    • 00:00:40welcome everyone to this WebEx meeting. Appreciate everyone's
    • 00:00:46willingness to meet by WebEx this month. Lots going
    • 00:00:49on, and being a Monday, we decided
    • 00:00:54to go WebEx only. So welcome.
    • 00:00:58Want to get started with item number one, which is the antitrust
    • Clip 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
      00:01:01admonition. And to avoid raising
    • 00:01:05concerns about antitrust liability,
    • 00:01:08participants in ERCOT activity should refrain from proposing any action
    • 00:01:12or measure that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal or
    • 00:01:15state law. And so
    • 00:01:20want to also mention
    • 00:01:25the disclaimer about materials that are provided.
    • 00:01:28Those are received and posted
    • 00:01:32with the acknowledgment. It will be considered public. So,
    • 00:01:35moving on to item number two,
    • 00:01:38agenda review. Typical discussions.
    • Clip 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
      00:01:42 We have a report from Keith
    • 00:01:46Collins on framework for evaluating market design.
    • 00:01:50We also have working group reports,
    • 00:01:54a couple of new NPRRs discuss status
    • 00:01:57of some tabled NPRRs. And then
    • 00:02:03we'll do our combo ballot. And just to remind everyone
    • 00:02:06the combo ballot is hopefully for things that we
    • 00:02:10all consent to and agree to. And we'll be
    • 00:02:14working on that combo ballot through the course of this meeting. We need to
    • 00:02:17have a separate ballot. We can always do that.
    • 00:02:21The also here we want to mention
    • 00:02:25we have proxies and alternate reps.
    • 00:02:27Resni has selected Shane Thomas
    • 00:02:31as her alternate rep and Vincent Roberts has selected
    • 00:02:36Rob Bevel as his alternate rep.
    • 00:02:38I don't believe we had any other proxies or alternates.
    • 00:02:43So let's move on to item number three,
    • Clip 3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Vote - Eric Blakey
      00:02:47approval of meeting minutes. And we
    • 00:02:51have the minutes from our August 7 meeting.
    • 00:02:55I don't believe the September minutes are yet available,
    • 00:02:59but you can see on the screen the minutes
    • 00:03:02that were provided in draft form. They were posted
    • 00:03:08Brittany or Pam, do we have any comments turned in
    • 00:03:11on these minutes? No, sir.
    • 00:03:16Okay, anyone have any comments or questions or
    • 00:03:19can we move these to the combo ballot? Any opposition to
    • 00:03:23that? I'm not seeing
    • 00:03:27any. So let's add those to the combo ballot.
    • 00:03:31Next is item four, which is the TAC update.
    • Clip 4 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update - Eric Blakey
      00:03:35 And the highlight from the TAC meeting on September 19
    • 00:03:38was the discussion of about the stakeholder process and
    • 00:03:43possible enhancements. A couple of takeaways
    • 00:03:46that I had. The PUC
    • 00:03:51deputy executive director Barksdale English was there and participated,
    • 00:03:55thought it was a really good discussion and appreciated him being
    • 00:03:59there. The group discussed clarity around ERCOT's
    • 00:04:02role between stakeholders and the board,
    • 00:04:06more representation of the TAC decisions and discussions at the
    • 00:04:09board. My understanding is TAC will have
    • 00:04:13further discussions on this and potential paths forward at the next TAC meeting.
    • 00:04:19There was discussion about some
    • 00:04:23issues that have come up in RTC+B, and setting ancillary service
    • 00:04:26demand curves and trying to get that policy
    • 00:04:30decision by the end of the year. And there was discussion about the
    • 00:04:342025 ancillary services methodology that
    • 00:04:39was approved, that was consistent with our recommendation
    • 00:04:42from last month. And that goes to the board later this week
    • 00:04:46and the PUC, likely in November,
    • 00:04:49for final approval. And just as a reminder,
    • 00:04:52the board does meet this week. They meet on Wednesday and Thursday.
    • 00:04:56The board committees will meet on Wednesday and
    • 00:04:59the board meets on Thursday. So just a reminder there.
    • 00:05:02Anyone have anything else they wanted to add from the discussion at the September
    • 00:05:0719 TAC meeting?
    • 00:05:14Okay, very good. Seeing nothing in the queue.
    • 00:05:17Let's go to item number five,
    • Clip 5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
      00:05:19 ERCOT's framework for evaluating market design as
    • 00:05:23discussed at the August board. And I believe we have Keith
    • 00:05:27Collins, vice president of commercial operations for ERCOT.
    • 00:05:30Keith, are you on the line? I am on the line. Can you hear me?
    • 00:05:34Yes, sir. Very good. I'll turn it over to you. Thanks.
    • 00:05:37All right, excellent. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity
    • 00:05:41to speak with you guys here today.
    • 00:05:45Haven't had a chance to meet everybody but Keith
    • 00:05:48Collins, vice president, commercial operations, the new canon.
    • 00:05:52I don't know how much longer I can say that, but I'm
    • 00:05:57the new canon. And one of the things that I'd like to talk to you
    • 00:06:00today is about some comments that Pablo made at the
    • 00:06:05August board meeting discussing a framework for market design.
    • 00:06:09It seemed to be good to bring it to this group to have a
    • 00:06:12conversation today. So, without further ado, let's move to
    • 00:06:15the next slide.
    • 00:06:19All right, the first couple slides, I just wanted
    • 00:06:22to sort of create a foundation for some key points
    • 00:06:26and thinking through the mission statement, the ERCOT
    • 00:06:31mission and vision statement. There's some keywords in here that we're going
    • 00:06:34to mention later in the presentation as we discuss the
    • 00:06:37framework. So I just wanted to kind of refresh our memories here.
    • 00:06:41For instance, in the mission,
    • 00:06:45we talk about reliable grid and efficient electricity markets and
    • 00:06:49the mission. So that's kind of important. Obviously,
    • 00:06:52open access and retail choice as well. But especially as we
    • 00:06:55start thinking through a framework, reliability,
    • 00:06:58efficiency are kind of keywords. And then in the vision,
    • 00:07:02sort of this independent insight on markets for
    • 00:07:06the benefit of stakeholders is important as well as we think through
    • 00:07:10what the framework is bringing to us.
    • 00:07:14All right, next slide.
    • 00:07:20Right. And then there is a document, there's a
    • 00:07:23strategic plan document that came out last
    • 00:07:27year in 23. I don't know if everybody's had a chance to
    • 00:07:31review it, but hopefully you've had and just
    • 00:07:35sort of refresh some memories here. There were some key strategic objectives
    • 00:07:39that came out of that strategic document, that strategic process.
    • 00:07:43And so I wanted to pull these out just
    • 00:07:47to again, refresh our memories as we sort of go into what
    • 00:07:50the framework, as it connects to these points. So the first strategic
    • 00:07:54objective you'll see be the industry leader and grid
    • 00:07:58reliability, resilience, obviously really important.
    • 00:08:01And then the second one I really wanted to
    • 00:08:06also call out, because, again, these are going to be kind of foundational things,
    • 00:08:10is to enhance the region's economic competitiveness with
    • 00:08:15respect to trends in the wholesale rates and retail prices as
    • 00:08:19well. So that's really important as well as we talk through this. And so
    • 00:08:23they'll become sort of, what are we trying to achieve?
    • 00:08:27And I think that if these are objectives, they're sort of outlining
    • 00:08:31what it is that we're trying to achieve as we move forward.
    • 00:08:35All right, next slide.
    • 00:08:40All right, so this will have some animation, so if we can just click once.
    • 00:08:44And so I think it's important to sort of note
    • 00:08:47that it's important to have the right tool for the job, particularly as we
    • 00:08:51start talking about efficiency. Right. You want to be efficient when you
    • 00:08:54do something, and so you kind of need different tools to accomplish
    • 00:08:59different objectives. And so if we
    • 00:09:02click one more, we'll see that, for instance,
    • 00:09:07we think of different tools here. Whether it's a shovel, we have different
    • 00:09:10types of rakes. You may have a pitchfork, for instance.
    • 00:09:14These are tools. And obviously we're
    • 00:09:19not designing markets about rakes and shovels, but I think
    • 00:09:22it highlights the point that it's a different tool for a different job.
    • 00:09:26It accomplishes different objectives.
    • 00:09:29Let's click one. For instance,
    • 00:09:33if you need to dig a hole, well, grab the shovel.
    • 00:09:39You may not have a backhoe, for instance, but if
    • 00:09:44you're doing this yourself and you have a set of tools,
    • 00:09:47you want to grab the shovel because you're more efficiently
    • 00:09:50going to dig that hole with the shovel. So click another.
    • 00:09:55And then, hey, if it's the fall and you need to pick up the leaves
    • 00:10:00on the ground, again, you're going to grab your rake and
    • 00:10:04you'll do that job a lot faster using your rake,
    • 00:10:08in that case. So again, it gets to this point of
    • 00:10:11if you want to efficiently accomplish your task, grab the right tool
    • 00:10:16to do that. Next slide.
    • 00:10:19So the framework, what the framework kind of helps do is it
    • 00:10:23helps to outline the different tasks. Right? So, hey,
    • 00:10:26we got to dig a hole, we need to pick up the leaves, we need
    • 00:10:29to spread the mulch. There's the different tasks that we
    • 00:10:33need to do in order to reliably
    • 00:10:37and affordably operate the grid, which we get from our strategic
    • 00:10:40objectives. Right. So if we're, we're talking about, hey, we need to.
    • 00:10:44Reliability, resilience, and we need to be affordable and
    • 00:10:47we need to do that well, how are we going to do that? Well,
    • 00:10:50we've got these objectives and tasks that we need
    • 00:10:53to do, or attributes of the framework, and then
    • 00:10:57what are the tools we're going to need to do to achieve that?
    • 00:11:01Next click.
    • 00:11:03So when we design the markets,
    • 00:11:07we need to do that efficiently to achieve these results, much like
    • 00:11:11we would if we were cleaning up the yard. Next click.
    • 00:11:16So it's that alignment of the
    • 00:11:20tool and the task is very
    • 00:11:24similar to meet the system needs, and then one more click.
    • 00:11:29And so using the wrong tool can
    • 00:11:32result in inefficiencies and unintended consequences.
    • 00:11:36Sort of like using a rake to dig a hole or a shovel
    • 00:11:40to pick up your leaves. I mean, you can conceivably
    • 00:11:43do something with a rake if you're trying to dig a hole, or you could
    • 00:11:47use a shovel to move the rake, the leaves around a little bit.
    • 00:11:50And I guess you could grab a few of them if you tried to pick
    • 00:11:53them up, but it would not be very efficient. You'd expend a lot
    • 00:11:56of effort to try to get something, and maybe you
    • 00:12:00get a little out of it. But there are other tools
    • 00:12:04to be successful when designing a market, much like,
    • 00:12:07as I said, cleaning up your yard. All right, next slide.
    • Clip 5.1 - ERCOT’s Framework for Evaluating Market Design - as discussed at August Board - Keith Collins
      00:12:13 All right, so that pulls us into a
    • 00:12:16framework. Right. And again, I'll be clear that this
    • 00:12:20is not the end all, be all of frameworks, but it's something that,
    • 00:12:25as market design and development here in ERCOT, we're thinking about.
    • 00:12:28Yeah, these seem to be some key things that we think is important and
    • 00:12:33provides us sort of an example or a sample framework
    • 00:12:37to help meet those kind of two pillars that we talked about.
    • 00:12:40There's a reliability pillar and there's an affordability pillar that we're
    • 00:12:44really shooting for. And these attributes
    • 00:12:48that we're talking about, dependability, efficiency,
    • 00:12:51resiliency, help us achieve that.
    • 00:12:54And so what we've done is come up with this as
    • 00:12:58a way to help with the dialogue as we're talking about our
    • 00:13:02initiatives. I know, we've got a lot of initiatives out there, and we'll
    • 00:13:06talk about a few of them on the next slide. But when you talk about
    • 00:13:09something like ECRS or DRRS or PCM
    • 00:13:13and all these other elements that we're working on,
    • 00:13:17what can happen sometimes is that you sort of start talking
    • 00:13:21about the trees in the forest, right. Is that you're talking about a
    • 00:13:24tree, but you're not talking necessarily about the attributes of
    • 00:13:28what that tree does within the forest. Does it provide fruit,
    • 00:13:31does it provide shade, provide color? What is it that it's
    • 00:13:35providing in your forest, and is it helping you achieve
    • 00:13:38your ultimate goals? And in this case, reliability and affordability?
    • 00:13:43Okay, so let's go to the meat of this presentation,
    • 00:13:46which is really the next slide, and I expect it'll
    • 00:13:50generate some conversation. But here are some things that we think is important
    • 00:13:54as we're moving forward. And again, I think there may be different ways
    • 00:13:58of saying some things you hear in some of these meetings.
    • 00:14:01Like, for instance, flexibility. Right. We need resources
    • 00:14:05that can ramp up and down, and we can do it quickly.
    • 00:14:09What we hear sometimes in the stakeholder process is dispatchability. Well,
    • 00:14:13what does dispatchability really mean? It means that you can be flexible,
    • 00:14:17that you can move up and down to
    • 00:14:22meet the needs of the system. Some resources are
    • 00:14:26very flexible, and other resources
    • 00:14:29are nothing. And are we valuing that, and can we value
    • 00:14:33that? In my view, in a way, that's what DRRs
    • 00:14:37does. It's a way to value dispatchability
    • 00:14:41and that attribute that we're not necessarily doing today.
    • 00:14:45How are we valuing that flexibility that we have
    • 00:14:49on the system? And when
    • 00:14:52folks are making investment decisions, it's like, geez, is this something that's valued
    • 00:14:56when they make those choices and bring that to the system,
    • 00:14:59or are we not providing that signal?
    • 00:15:03And again, DRRS, in my mind, helps do that. It's a tool
    • 00:15:07that can be designed to help with flexibility, and there
    • 00:15:11are other tools that you could have to do that. But DRRS is an example,
    • 00:15:15dependability, I think that this is an
    • 00:15:20example of, hey, if we're calling on resources, are they
    • 00:15:24going to be there when we expect them to be there? And we have forecasted
    • 00:15:28resources that we may not know what they're
    • 00:15:32going to do, and there's an error term around where
    • 00:15:36they're going to be. It could be higher, it could be lower. We don't know
    • 00:15:42what's the dependability of those resources? And I think,
    • 00:15:47is that something we're valuing as well? Is that an attribute that
    • 00:15:51certain resources bring that other resources down.
    • 00:15:55Availability. This is definitely a hot
    • 00:15:59topic that's going on not just here in the ERCOT region,
    • 00:16:02but in many other places in the
    • 00:16:06RTOs and ISOs as well. UGs are resources available
    • 00:16:10when we need them. And I intentionally did not
    • 00:16:14say resource adequacy because resource adequacy isn't really
    • 00:16:18an attribute. No. What you want is resources to be available.
    • 00:16:22We need them to be available. Now. Weatherization is
    • 00:16:25something that can help promote availability. That's an availability mechanism.
    • 00:16:30Now, it's not necessarily a market mechanism, but it is a tool that helps improve
    • 00:16:34availability. So weatherization fits in there. PCM is
    • 00:16:39a tool that's designed to promote availability by
    • 00:16:42valuing particular periods and
    • 00:16:47providing value during those periods beyond just what you get in real
    • 00:16:50time. So availability becomes really important. Our resources there
    • 00:16:54and available when we need them to help promote
    • 00:16:58that grid reliability. Resiliency ECRS,
    • 00:17:02in my mind, is a great example of resiliency
    • 00:17:06tool. Having gone
    • 00:17:10through some of the recent storms in the SPP
    • 00:17:14system, it's rather clear that their resiliency
    • 00:17:17is done through interties they had at the
    • 00:17:21January storm earlier this year. There was almost 15%
    • 00:17:25of SPPs generation was coming non
    • 00:17:29firm on the Ties that day. It just showed
    • 00:17:32up from MISO and PGM and other regions to
    • 00:17:37help create a resilient system during a cold
    • 00:17:41snap. If SPP didn't have that,
    • 00:17:44I'm pretty sure they probably wouldn't have been able to
    • 00:17:48been as reliable as they were during some of these events. And so we
    • 00:17:51don't have that in ERCOT, and so we rely
    • 00:17:55on other tools. And ECRS is an example of, hey,
    • 00:17:59there's a great resiliency tool that can help us manage
    • 00:18:03some of these events that occur from time to time.
    • 00:18:07Quality. There was the
    • 00:18:10nuclear task force that was going on recently, and there
    • 00:18:14was discussion about, well, what's the value of nuclear? Well, it seems
    • 00:18:18like, hey, are there qualities that are valued
    • 00:18:22or of value? And if so,
    • 00:18:26how are they valued? Now, we know that from
    • 00:18:30a federal level, wind and solar resources production
    • 00:18:34tax credits, investment tax credits, they're valuing equality.
    • 00:18:37And there are other resources that
    • 00:18:40may have certain qualities as well. And are we valuing those?
    • 00:18:44As I said early on, efficiency is really important.
    • 00:18:47RTC, in my mind, is a great example of an efficiency
    • 00:18:51tool. It's exciting that we announced the target go
    • 00:18:55live date of December 5 of next year.
    • 00:18:58That's really exciting. It's going to create a lot of efficiencies in the market
    • 00:19:03and how the Ansli services and energy is co optimized.
    • 00:19:07And it's a great example of, hey, we're promoting efficiency in
    • 00:19:10a market. We want an efficient market, and these tools allow us to do that.
    • 00:19:15And then the final attribute we sort of laid out here is location.
    • 00:19:19Yeah, there's locational value. And when resources are
    • 00:19:23closer to where they're needed, there's value for doing that. And I
    • 00:19:27think when we start thinking about, hey, the transmission plan that's out there,
    • 00:19:31there's value of having those
    • 00:19:35resources closer. And if they're not, then there are alternatives like
    • 00:19:38transmission that needs to be developed to support that. So providing
    • 00:19:43that value and enhancing that value of location
    • 00:19:47is important as well. So this is a framework that we've been thinking about.
    • 00:19:51I know I've been seeing some questions kind of pop up
    • 00:19:56and so I'm just going to pause here and throw it to Eric and
    • 00:19:59see if you want to get that question process
    • 00:20:03started. Yeah, let's go ahead and go to Eric Goff.
    • 00:20:07Eric, you're up. Hey, good morning.
    • 00:20:10Thank you so much for the presentation. I think this is a
    • 00:20:14good start to think through if we're going to
    • 00:20:18approach services as attributes, but I think
    • 00:20:22it would take some more digging to get to something actionable.
    • 00:20:28To the extent that we're going to spend money on something on this list.
    • 00:20:34You know, for now, this list is a little bit high level.
    • 00:20:37Right. And if
    • 00:20:42it were to lead to a product
    • 00:20:46design or design decision, I think
    • 00:20:49we would need to get more specific about
    • 00:20:53what attributes we need and why we need them and in what
    • 00:20:56quantity we might need that attribute. Um, so for
    • 00:21:00example, one thing on the quality list is contributing
    • 00:21:04to inertia, right. And we've talked about that previously as,
    • 00:21:07um, something ERCOT might need to cover.
    • 00:21:12Um, and, um,
    • 00:21:16you know, as I think about what is the attribute that you need for a
    • 00:21:19resource? Um, you know, given the modern
    • 00:21:23market related inertia, it's the
    • 00:21:27ability to slow the rate of change of frequency,
    • 00:21:30and we need that because
    • 00:21:34of other needs on the grid and the ability for the grid to react
    • 00:21:38in certain timeframes.
    • 00:21:41So I think that is a good
    • 00:21:45way to maybe take the next
    • 00:21:48step on this is to think through what specific attributes
    • 00:21:52of resources ERCOT might need or
    • 00:21:57does need, but already has. Maybe in the case of inertia.
    • 00:22:02Similarly, I think, you know, although it wasn't conceived of this way,
    • 00:22:08the firm fuel service is,
    • 00:22:12you know, yes, you could say the attribute is firm fuel, but the
    • 00:22:16need is the ability to get through freezing
    • 00:22:20conditions or lack of gas supply,
    • 00:22:25the grid needs to get through a particular duration
    • 00:22:29of event when the gas supply
    • 00:22:33might be at risk. And one way we're getting
    • 00:22:36that is through the firm fuel service. Just like one way we
    • 00:22:40might get inertia is by paying generators to turn on
    • 00:22:44Orlando batteries that are inertia capable to
    • 00:22:47provide that. So if we get to that level
    • 00:22:51of specificity about
    • 00:22:54what our needs are, then we can come up with
    • 00:22:58another attribute, which is the least cost way to meet that need.
    • 00:23:04And so I think this is an important
    • 00:23:07conversation, but I'd like to
    • 00:23:10take it a step further, and I appreciate you all starting the
    • 00:23:14conversation. Okay, thanks, Eric. Appreciate it.
    • 00:23:19Very good, Eric. Thank you. Bill Barnes, you're up.
    • 00:23:23Thanks, Eric. Yeah. Keith. Just wanted to also
    • 00:23:26voice support for this framework. This is
    • 00:23:30something we've never really had and is important to
    • 00:23:34assess any of the market structure changes that we make.
    • 00:23:38Historically, we've tended to wait
    • 00:23:41for a great event to happen and then be
    • 00:23:45in panic mode and trying to respond to that versus being forward
    • 00:23:49looking with what the goals are and the attributes
    • 00:23:53that we're trying to accomplish. So, really appreciate
    • 00:23:57you guys putting thought into something like
    • 00:24:01this so that we have some type of benchmark in a process and
    • 00:24:05plan to assess future market design changes.
    • 00:24:08Very important. So, thank you. You did,
    • 00:24:11you mentioned resource adequacy. I just. My reaction
    • 00:24:15here is that resource adequacy impacts every single one of these.
    • 00:24:18So in terms of priority, that needs to
    • 00:24:21be number one. And then I'm curious
    • 00:24:25if you could, I know you guys are still thinking through kind of how
    • 00:24:29this, how this final framework will look,
    • 00:24:33but I'm curious if you have an idea on how you would
    • 00:24:36apply this in practice. So that's a
    • 00:24:39great question. And I think that what we'd
    • 00:24:43like to be able to do is when we
    • 00:24:47think about the various products that we're working
    • 00:24:50on, and an example being,
    • 00:24:53you could talk ECRs or any of the
    • 00:24:57other ones, but think about what is that product
    • 00:25:01actually bringing? And as we're designing and considering it,
    • 00:25:06if ECRS is supposed to be, you know, create resiliency,
    • 00:25:11then are we designing it and developing it in a way that,
    • 00:25:14that meets that particular need? Now, it could meet
    • 00:25:18multiple needs. You know, you could have a project that says, oh, it creates defendability,
    • 00:25:22it creates availability. That's great, but is
    • 00:25:26it designed to do that in a particular way? And is it doing kind of,
    • 00:25:29as Eric was saying, is it doing it in efficient, least cost way relative
    • 00:25:33to other options? And so I think ultimately the
    • 00:25:37thought would be, as we're developing these initiatives,
    • 00:25:41we're thinking through the different attributes and how it's doing
    • 00:25:45that and what it's achieving in terms of,
    • 00:25:48like you said, forest, you have a tree. And how does that
    • 00:25:51tree impact your forest? How does your initiative impact those
    • 00:25:55attributes, which gets you that reliability and affordability
    • 00:25:59that we're shooting for. So I think that's ultimately the vision in
    • 00:26:03the long run.
    • 00:26:06Okay, thank you. Yep. Thanks. Thank you,
    • 00:26:09Bill. All right, next we have seans. Sean, you're up.
    • 00:26:13Hi, Keith. My name is Sham Siddiqui. I don't think we've met
    • 00:26:16yet, but, yeah, I was.
    • 00:26:19I had a question why you mentioned it, but you
    • 00:26:23didn't quite describe why resource adequacy is not on this list.
    • 00:26:26Because I think that, as Bill was saying, that should be on the top of
    • 00:26:30this list. The ERCOT market. I would say with our
    • 00:26:35high offer cap and stuff, we are sending a lot of these
    • 00:26:38signals. We might be very efficient, dependable and everything.
    • 00:26:43But if there isn't resource
    • 00:26:46adequacy, in the sense that your market isn't supporting the
    • 00:26:50type of resources needed, let's say, to meet a winter storm event,
    • 00:26:54and that's a major gap in the.
    • 00:26:58In the market. So I was wondering why adequacy isn't
    • 00:27:03on the top of this list. So the thought,
    • 00:27:06again, is,
    • 00:27:09what is it that a resource adequacy program is
    • 00:27:13intended to achieve? Right? Is it just saying,
    • 00:27:17well, we're going to have steel in the ground? Is that what a resource adequacy
    • 00:27:21program? Or you could say capacity market or
    • 00:27:25a California style market. What is it really doing?
    • 00:27:31And sort of, this is, in my view, and again, I'm happy to listen to
    • 00:27:35what others are saying. And the feedback is, it really is
    • 00:27:39saying that we want resources to be available
    • 00:27:43to meet your system needs. You need resources
    • 00:27:46to do that. Right. And there's a forward. In some
    • 00:27:50cases, there's a forward element to that where it may not
    • 00:27:53be your availability today, it could be availability in
    • 00:27:57the future, given your changing mix
    • 00:28:01of load or generation. But in my
    • 00:28:04mind, that's really what it's trying to accomplish, is to have
    • 00:28:07the resources available to meet your needs in real time
    • 00:28:11so that you have, in the end, a secure system, you're reliable.
    • 00:28:16And so that was the thought that we had, was to try to define
    • 00:28:20the attributes you were shooting for, rather than saying,
    • 00:28:23we need resource adequacy. Well, no, you need availability.
    • 00:28:27And there are resource adequacy programs that are designed to achieve that
    • 00:28:31in the end, like a PGM capacity market or
    • 00:28:34a California style resource adequacy program. It's designed
    • 00:28:39to have resources available to meet your needs
    • 00:28:42in real time. So that was the thought.
    • 00:28:45Yeah, I don't think I fully agree with that because to me,
    • 00:28:48availability is really in
    • 00:28:51our market. It's guaranteed by the high offer caps.
    • 00:28:54It used to be 9000 where you had a very strong incentive to be available.
    • 00:29:00And we had all those signals. And the market does respond to those signals.
    • 00:29:04We're getting the right capacity because we have some tail
    • 00:29:08end events that have very infrequent probabilities
    • 00:29:12of occurring like a winter storm like Yuri. There's no
    • 00:29:16incentive market incentive or market
    • 00:29:20price support to justify building the kind
    • 00:29:24of dispatchable resources you need to be resilient
    • 00:29:29available during those times. So that's the difference I see between adequacy
    • 00:29:32and some of these attributes.
    • 00:29:36Okay, well, I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.
    • 00:29:41Thank you. Shams. I don't see anyone else in the queue,
    • 00:29:45so I'll turn it back over to you, Keith. All right. Okay. Well, then I
    • 00:29:48think that brings us, I think we got one more slide.
    • 00:29:53Okay. And ultimately, I think we were doing exactly
    • 00:29:57what sort of going forward is, hey, let's have a conversation about this.
    • 00:30:01And we sort of have started that conversation about,
    • 00:30:03hey, you know, what considerations do we need
    • 00:30:06to think about this? Feedback's been great. I imagine there'll
    • 00:30:10be further discussion, you know, at the
    • 00:30:14board, with board members. I think it really helps them think about
    • 00:30:17as they're getting initiatives and they're trying to weigh,
    • 00:30:20hey, what is this initiative doing or not doing? But again,
    • 00:30:24refinements to the framework. And we've been discussing
    • 00:30:27that and then how do you measure that? And I think that was something that
    • 00:30:32I think Eric had mentioned earlier, is like, well, how do you measure that?
    • 00:30:35You're achieving this, right? What metrics do you have? What measurements do you have?
    • 00:30:39And so that's where I think we'll start moving in that direction
    • 00:30:43ultimately. But I think
    • 00:30:47this is a good start and we can definitely continue
    • 00:30:51as we move forward. So any final thoughts,
    • 00:30:54Eric? I'll hand it back to you, see if there are any
    • 00:30:58final thoughts from folks. Okay, we have a comment from
    • 00:31:01Eric in the chat that he says he doesn't need
    • 00:31:04to be in the queue. So we can read that. We do have a question
    • 00:31:08from Doug with tape.
    • 00:31:11Doug, go ahead. Thanks all. Hey,
    • 00:31:14Keith, I was just curious on your going
    • 00:31:17forward slide here, are there going to be any former,
    • 00:31:22excuse me, formal comment periods that you expect to come up
    • 00:31:26for participants to make comments on the framework.
    • 00:31:31I don't know that we had anything formal at this point, but we can definitely
    • 00:31:35consider that. And I hear the, what's the timeframe? And again,
    • 00:31:39we were trying to get some feedback at a high level,
    • 00:31:42and we can definitely take this feedback in terms of, hey, what kind of
    • 00:31:46formal process might we have or what timeline? And we can work
    • 00:31:49on that and loop back with you and I,
    • 00:31:53you know, in the coming, you know, in the coming meetings for sure.
    • 00:31:57Okay, great. Yeah, I was curious mostly because I
    • 00:32:01have some members who I know would probably like to expand on
    • 00:32:05how flexibility should be measured and considered. So I just want
    • 00:32:08to know if there are going to be future opportunities. Absolutely. Yeah.
    • 00:32:12Definitely. Definitely will be. Again, I think
    • 00:32:16it was something new. We wanted to brace it with you guys. And the
    • 00:32:19feedback, from what I can gather, is pretty positive in terms of how
    • 00:32:22we're thinking, but we might want to have some feedback and some thoughts on the
    • 00:32:26process and move forward. So happy to do that.
    • 00:32:29Great. Thank you. I don't see any other
    • 00:32:32questions. Kate, I guess, does ERCOT anticipate
    • 00:32:36any sort of evaluation or like,
    • 00:32:41where do you see us today and where do we
    • 00:32:45need to be on some of these metrics? I think,
    • 00:32:49well, I think what we're trying to do,
    • 00:32:52at least initially here, is try to get,
    • 00:32:56change the dialogue a little bit, particularly when you start talking with
    • 00:33:00high level folks like the board, some legislators and regulators,
    • 00:33:03and it sounds like they're always like, hey, I want to talk about
    • 00:33:08RTC, the specific thing. That's great.
    • 00:33:12I mean, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But let's not lose sight
    • 00:33:16of what we're really trying to accomplish.
    • 00:33:19And as we think through all these initiatives that are coming
    • 00:33:23through, and I think your question is, well, how do we evaluate if we're
    • 00:33:27sort of meeting the needs? And I think that's a great
    • 00:33:30point. And I think the start is, hey, can we come up
    • 00:33:33with something that we can generally agree on and we can refine it over time?
    • 00:33:36It doesn't have to be, this is the only way to do it.
    • 00:33:39But we can come up with something, say, hey, if we can
    • 00:33:43generally agree on these primary principles, and then we can start
    • 00:33:46thinking about, like, what you're suggesting is how do we sort of measure of,
    • 00:33:49hey, do we have a gap? Are we missing something in our forest?
    • 00:33:52Right. You know, are we missing something in our framework
    • 00:33:56that we need to be working on? And I think that's a, that's a great
    • 00:33:58point. And so step one was kind of come up with something that
    • 00:34:03generally we can. We can start with,
    • 00:34:06and then we can start doing what I think you're suggesting. And what Eric is
    • 00:34:09suggesting is, hey, let's start looking at the different parts of the
    • 00:34:13framework and see where are we. You know, are we doing pretty good, or do
    • 00:34:17we need something else, or can we measure up against it and
    • 00:34:21things like that. So I think those are some of the sort of the second
    • 00:34:24steps that we want to start thinking about. Very good.
    • 00:34:27All right, thank you very much. Getting Q
    • 00:34:31again, we have. Bryan. Sam, do you have a question? Go ahead,
    • 00:34:35Keith. Good morning. Appreciate this presentation.
    • 00:34:39My question is really about just
    • 00:34:43how ERCOT plans to measure where we are
    • 00:34:47versus where we think the goal is. And I kind
    • 00:34:51of think the goal is the reliability standard that the commission recently
    • 00:34:55adopted. What tool do
    • 00:34:59you see as being used to
    • 00:35:04give us our measuring stick for how close or far we are,
    • 00:35:07and what's the timeline for evaluating just
    • 00:35:14where we are? Okay. Well,
    • 00:35:17again, I don't have anything specific on timeline
    • 00:35:21or measurement at this point, but I think as a sort of next
    • 00:35:25steps, we definitely want to be working on that in the coming months
    • 00:35:29here so that we can come up with something, because, again, kind of a new
    • 00:35:32thing. Right. A new way of thinking about things,
    • 00:35:36and we want to move into that direction
    • 00:35:39of doing exactly what you're saying is say, hey, if we've got.
    • 00:35:42We want to be. What's our reliability? How we measure
    • 00:35:46reliability, how we measure efficiency, how do we measure that relative to these
    • 00:35:50things? Yeah, we want to start thinking about that as kind
    • 00:35:54of our next steps and then move forward. So I don't have any specific timelines
    • 00:35:57or metrics at this point, but I. I appreciate the feedback in
    • 00:36:01terms of, hey, maybe it'd be good to come up with these metrics
    • 00:36:05and timelines and think about how you might want to connect those. So happy
    • 00:36:08to do that.
    • 00:36:12Okay, thank you. Just one follow up comment
    • 00:36:16on that. I think the Pete
    • 00:36:21Warnken's resource adequacy team has done a nice job in
    • 00:36:24the past of, with the Merm study,
    • 00:36:28providing some metrics around
    • 00:36:32how close we are to achieving any particular standard.
    • 00:36:36And I guess I would expect there to be some
    • 00:36:40kind of similar market equilibrium
    • 00:36:44reserve margin study as part of this.
    • 00:36:48But look forward to hearing what you guys are thinking soon.
    • 00:36:51Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Bryan.
    • 00:36:55Thank you, Bryan. I don't see anyone else in the queue,
    • 00:36:58Keith, just so you'll know, there's a couple of comments in the chat that.
    • 00:37:02That folks have made that they just said,
    • 00:37:05don't don't put me in the queue. Just wanted to document,
    • 00:37:09so you might want to check some of that if
    • 00:37:13there's no other comments or questions. Thank you very
    • 00:37:17much. This was very helpful. We really appreciate the dialogue.
    • 00:37:21It's really good to have a good communication
    • 00:37:24with you. And so you're welcome every month. We appreciate
    • 00:37:28this update. Thank you so much. Thank you.
    • 00:37:32Okay, next we'll go to our working group updates
    • 00:37:37and item number six, congestion management working
    • 00:37:40group. And we have Alex Miller. Alex, are you on the line?
    • 00:37:44I am. Thank you, Eriche. We did have
    • Clip 6 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - Alex Miller
      00:37:47our. Thank you. We met, congestion management working group met
    • 00:37:51on September 23, and we have our
    • 00:37:55update for today. One of the topics
    • 00:37:59that we did cover. We had ERCOT staff come and give an update on
    • 00:38:02the SCR819, NPRR1111,
    • 00:38:07otherwise known as not to exceed methodology,
    • 00:38:11how that implementation is going, the monitoring and impacts
    • 00:38:14that they have observed. And so again, as a
    • 00:38:18reminder, the goal of that was to improve control of the flows on GTCs
    • 00:38:22by limiting resources to their base point during
    • 00:38:25SCED intervals, when GTCs are binding, when they're impactful on those GTCs.
    • 00:38:30That was implemented in June of this year, and they've been
    • 00:38:33monitoring the performance through the summer.
    • 00:38:37The observed patterns did show, before and after
    • 00:38:41did show that there was an improvement in reducing that generation to
    • 00:38:47stay at the set point and be much closer to the
    • 00:38:51limits, and that some of those GTC
    • 00:38:54limits have been reduced a few percent so far. But they
    • 00:38:58are continuing to observe through this fall period.
    • 00:39:02There's a slight phenomenon that they've noticed
    • 00:39:05with oscillation and dispatch around the limit, because as the GTCs
    • 00:39:09become active, it starts at a lower limit and then they increment
    • 00:39:13it up. And so as the cycling through the
    • 00:39:16SCED intervals, there's some oscillation there. So they're looking at how to
    • 00:39:21mitigate that challenge,
    • 00:39:24again, improving better than it was before. But there's still that oscillation challenge
    • 00:39:28that they're observing. They are continuing to observe
    • 00:39:32and analyze and do some tests and look at training
    • 00:39:35and specific guidelines for the control room operators to
    • 00:39:39get this fully, fully optimized.
    • 00:39:43They are going to continue monitoring through the fall, and we'll update again
    • 00:39:47later with more data after the fall period,
    • 00:39:50where there will be probably a higher coincident wind production and more opportunities
    • 00:39:54to measure the impact during those constrained times of
    • 00:39:58the GTCs. So this is so far so
    • 00:40:01good on SCR819.
    • 00:40:08We'll go to the next slide if there's no questions.
    • 00:40:11We had another update, and I know we saw this at
    • 00:40:15WMS or cost. Staff did bring this issue to WMS and to TAC.
    • 00:40:19We did discuss it again at CMWG
    • 00:40:23this month. Last month, the CRR
    • 00:40:26solution times that we're having in the long term auctions,
    • 00:40:31they did look at the importance
    • 00:40:34of and the issues they're seeing with
    • 00:40:38the performance issues and risks due to the rising bid volumes
    • 00:40:41is the biggest challenge that they are seeing. Three paths were
    • 00:40:45narrowed down to administrative guardrails, market incentives
    • 00:40:50and market redesign. So categorizing the
    • 00:40:53different approaches that have been discussed already, so limiting
    • 00:40:57the number of transactions per time of use or account holder
    • 00:41:01market incentives, increasing the minimum bid price or
    • 00:41:05having a bid fee for unawarded options. Market redesign
    • 00:41:09included removing that monthly multi month
    • 00:41:13bid functionality, which is 44% of the bids,
    • 00:41:17but would have a significant impact on the solution time if that was eliminated,
    • 00:41:21or adjusting the network model percentages.
    • 00:41:24So stakeholders did overall,
    • 00:41:27the least popular option and discussion was the raising
    • 00:41:31the minimum bid price, or at least suggesting
    • 00:41:35doing that very thoughtfully to avoid unintended consequences.
    • 00:41:41Stakeholders suggested other ways, you know, looking for ways to increase that data
    • 00:41:45transparency. Some of those really low bid prices may be just to
    • 00:41:49get information about what's happening in those auctions.
    • 00:41:53And if there was another way to share that information without having to participate,
    • 00:41:58that could eliminate one of the motivations to participate simply
    • 00:42:01for data discovery. ERCOT is going to continue
    • 00:42:05studying how discontinuing the multi month bids would
    • 00:42:08improve performance, and they're working on an NPRR to
    • 00:42:12allow for the administrative limits on the transactions for time
    • 00:42:16of use or bids per account.
    • 00:42:21All right, I we can go to the next slide.
    • 00:42:31And then we did revisit NPRR1214,
    • 00:42:37the RDPA locational fix.
    • 00:42:42And we had ERCOT had filed comments
    • 00:42:45and we reviewed those comments. They were concerned about
    • 00:42:48the treatments of the storage resources and controllable load
    • 00:42:52resources, the DC Tie curtailments,
    • 00:42:56and that the implementation of this would need to be
    • 00:42:59post RTC implementation due to really
    • 00:43:03bandwidth and not not interfering with that implementation process.
    • 00:43:07The sponsor did bring back a
    • 00:43:11presentation and draft red lines that
    • 00:43:15were pending co sponsor sign off on those,
    • 00:43:18but but did discuss the current
    • 00:43:22use of the indifference payment does cause that incentive
    • 00:43:26incompatibility with dispatch instructions. So that's the overarching issue.
    • 00:43:31The inefficient price signals are problematic for price responsive
    • 00:43:34resources and large flexible loads. He did
    • 00:43:37show some examples showing specific impacts on a couple of resources of
    • 00:43:42kind of before and after acknowledges the
    • 00:43:45risks and resources needed for implementing before or after RTC+B,
    • 00:43:51and did go over the draft incorporating the ERCOT
    • 00:43:54feedback, addressing the issues, including storage resources
    • 00:43:58and the DC Tie curtailment, streamlined it quite a bit.
    • 00:44:02Those red line. That draft is to be after approval
    • 00:44:06with the co sponsors submitted, and we're expecting to discuss this
    • 00:44:10at the next meeting. I see that there's a question from Bill.
    • 00:44:14Yeah, Alex, you have Bill Barnes in the queue. Go ahead,
    • 00:44:17Bill. Yeah, thanks. I did tune in and listened to
    • 00:44:21Shams, his presentation, which, you know, we've discussed this concept a
    • 00:44:24few times, and now that we've got line
    • 00:44:27of sight to RTC,
    • 00:44:30it might. It might be worth getting folks prepared
    • 00:44:34to vote for this so that we can tee it up if
    • 00:44:38we need to following RTC implementation. We do see this
    • 00:44:42as an improvement in the efficiency of dispatch and
    • 00:44:46sending appropriate price signals versus what
    • 00:44:50we're doing today with the system wide RDPA. And Shams has
    • 00:44:53a couple good examples in his presentation that help make that pretty clear.
    • 00:44:59I just don't want this to sit around forever. I do think it's important
    • 00:45:03to consider and probably give folks a heads up that we'll be
    • 00:45:07preparing to vote on at some point. Looks like there's more comments coming.
    • 00:45:11You know, it looks like not the next meeting, but we should tee this up
    • 00:45:14at some point at WMS and give folks just awareness that
    • 00:45:18we'll be voting on it at some point.
    • 00:45:21Agree? Great. No, that's a great point, Bill. We did,
    • 00:45:25there was a couple of months and we had some delays,
    • 00:45:28there was an ask for more data that ended up being an
    • 00:45:33insurmountable task.
    • 00:45:36And so we did kind of regroup.
    • 00:45:39Shams did prepare, did respond to ERCOT's
    • 00:45:42concerns. So how that seeing that draft
    • 00:45:46should help us move this along and we. Looks like
    • 00:45:50we do have two more comments. Sean said,
    • 00:45:53and then. Eric. Sean, go ahead.
    • 00:45:57Yeah, no, thanks, Bill. It's important for people to
    • 00:46:01really realize the importance of this NPRR. So this going
    • 00:46:04back to the previous presentation, this really addresses
    • 00:46:09a few of the items that were listed by ERCOT.
    • 00:46:12First of all, the system wide RDPA doesn't
    • 00:46:16send the locational signal, which was on their list, the locational price signal
    • 00:46:19that's needed. Secondly,
    • 00:46:22there's the inefficiencies of paying off capacity
    • 00:46:26that really doesn't. Well, that's in the current market,
    • 00:46:29the indifference payment, but also the reliability aspect
    • 00:46:33in that without the indifference payment, the price
    • 00:46:38signal and the dispatch instructions are incompatible,
    • 00:46:42incentive incompatible, so that chasing the
    • 00:46:45price signal under RTC is
    • 00:46:48not a good outcome that can result in reliability issues
    • 00:46:53on the grid. So I have those examples in the presentation.
    • 00:46:56If anyone's interested or has any questions, you can shoot me
    • 00:47:00email. But yeah, I think it's very important. Hopefully, you know,
    • 00:47:03I'd like to. I'm teeing this up at RTC as well,
    • 00:47:07because really this is something RTC needs. It's a gap in
    • 00:47:10the RTC design that the lack of the indifference payment
    • 00:47:15that could cause reliability issues. So I'm hoping
    • 00:47:19that we can get this done with RTC since the changes are not
    • 00:47:23very large. Thanks.
    • 00:47:26Thank you. Shams, Eric Goff.
    • 00:47:31Hey, Bill, I appreciate you mentioning
    • 00:47:35you want to seek a vote on this. I also appreciate
    • 00:47:38Shams for having done a lot of the presentations.
    • 00:47:42I know it's a hard ask for some things we asked for several months ago,
    • 00:47:46but you've been responsive.
    • 00:47:50I don't see if they're on the line right now,
    • 00:47:54but given that this
    • 00:47:58isn't a vote that's happening today, I'd appreciate that the
    • 00:48:01IMM would also be willing to weigh in on this NPRR.
    • 00:48:05Thanks. Or the
    • 00:48:09contemplative indifference payments in RTC.
    • 00:48:15Is there anyone from the Imm on the line?
    • 00:48:22And it can be at a future meeting if we just let them know.
    • 00:48:25Okay. Yeah. Alex, would you
    • 00:48:28mind sending Jeff an email,
    • 00:48:31invite him or someone just to be available? I think it
    • 00:48:34would be good to have their input and feedback and support.
    • 00:48:39Yeah, that sounds good. And yeah, we'll definitely invite
    • 00:48:43them to be at the next CMWG meeting as well,
    • 00:48:46to hear the discussion and chime in there if able,
    • 00:48:51but definitely to be prepared to address this in
    • 00:48:55writing or here at WMS.
    • 00:48:58It would be great. Okay, Bill, you're up. And to be
    • 00:49:02clear, we support this as a post RTC
    • 00:49:06enhancement. Shams, there's enough flying
    • 00:49:10around and changes coming in RTC that our folks would
    • 00:49:13like to just focus on those changes first. I do think
    • 00:49:17this is an improvement and something we should consider after
    • 00:49:21RTC, but I don't know if we would support including it as part of the
    • 00:49:24scope of RTC just because there's enough changes to deal with right now.
    • 00:49:28And Eric, I was just thinking that pick some
    • 00:49:32future meeting where everyone's aware that we're going to vote on it. I do
    • 00:49:35like the idea of having the imm weigh in, and maybe this is also
    • 00:49:38a candidate for Keith's market design
    • 00:49:42framework. Kind of run that through that process as well, get their views
    • 00:49:45on what attributes it may help address.
    • 00:49:50Sounds good. Okay. Have a
    • 00:49:54question from Andy Constellation. Go ahead, Andy.
    • 00:49:58Yeah. Hey, thanks, Eric. Andy went with consolation follow up
    • 00:50:01question on the timing. Has ERCOT opined on the impacts
    • 00:50:06whether this would be implemented with RTC or
    • 00:50:09post RTC?
    • 00:50:15ERCOT has filed written comments on the NPRR that
    • 00:50:19are pretty clear that they are not,
    • 00:50:23do not see a path to implement this before RTC.
    • 00:50:28Okay, thanks. So if. If that were to be approved, it would potentially
    • 00:50:32delay the current timing on RTC.
    • 00:50:36ERCOT is proposing that the
    • 00:50:40focus of this be to implement it after RTC to
    • 00:50:44avoid any conflicts there. They don't see a path
    • 00:50:47to implementing this prior to RTC without slowing it down.
    • 00:50:51Okay, Dave's on the line. Let's see.
    • 00:50:54Okay, great. Go ahead. Yeah. Thank you all for all.
    • 00:50:58Hear me fairly well. Alex, you said it correctly. But just to confirm
    • 00:51:01that we don't see a path for it being implemented prior or with RTC,
    • 00:51:05just to provide one bit of clarification. So we do see this as, you know,
    • 00:51:08if the stakeholders decide to move it forward, that it would be a post
    • 00:51:12RTC project. Hopefully that's clear.
    • 00:51:15Thank you. Thank you, Dave.
    • 00:51:20I don't see anyone else in the queue. Alex, you want to continue?
    • 00:51:24Sure, we can go on. This was. That was the last heavy topic.
    • 00:51:28We have one more other business slide.
    • 00:51:36Okay. We did straightforward, we did discuss
    • 00:51:40in the 2025 calendar, given that WMS
    • 00:51:43had gotten their calendar sorted,
    • 00:51:46we've put in for having the meetings
    • 00:51:50on Thursdays around the middle of the month. It's usually the week following
    • 00:51:54the Wednesday WMS meeting, so it gives us a little
    • 00:51:57more than a week to get the agenda posted.
    • 00:52:01As of now, there's only one month where WMS was extra early.
    • 00:52:05So it was a little over more than a week after.
    • 00:52:08It's the second week following WMS. But as of now,
    • 00:52:12like this year, WebEx only is the intention. We can switch to some in person
    • 00:52:16meetings if needed or by
    • 00:52:20popular opinion. But for now, we do have that calendar set.
    • 00:52:23So we were, you know, looking for anybody to speak if
    • 00:52:27they notice any conflicts up front. But we tried to
    • 00:52:31be consistent with the block calendar as it set
    • 00:52:34so far,
    • 00:52:38and that was it. Okay.
    • 00:52:41Thank you very much for your report. Really appreciate
    • 00:52:45it and the work that you all are doing.
    • 00:52:48Next, let's go to item seven,
    • 00:52:52the supply analysis working group, and Kevin Hanson.
    • 00:52:56Kevin, I'll make sure you guys can hear me, okay? Yes,
    • 00:52:59sir. Very good. Yeah, Brittany, next slide,
    • Clip 7 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson
      00:53:02please. So, this month was
    • 00:53:06relatively a short and sweet meeting, as it was
    • 00:53:09called. At the supply analysis working group, the only
    • 00:53:13topic on the agenda was discussion around the Dispatchable Resource
    • 00:53:17Reserve Service, NPRR1235.
    • 00:53:22Katie Rich Vistra gave a presentation on
    • 00:53:26the issue. After the presentation,
    • 00:53:29there were several commenters who suggested that using DRRS as
    • 00:53:33a resource taxi tool was a policy issue best addressed
    • 00:53:36by the commission.
    • 00:53:39Also, ERCOT staff mentioned they will be filing comments on the
    • 00:53:43NPRR. And so with that, the expectations
    • 00:53:46that the NPRR will return to SAWG next month for further discussions.
    • 00:53:51And last point is, next slide meeting is Friday, October 25,
    • 00:53:59and we have a queue with Bill Barnese. Bill,
    • 00:54:02go ahead. Actually had a question.
    • 00:54:06I don't know if Pete is on regarding the December,
    • 00:54:10upcoming December CDR and what
    • 00:54:14we should expect with 1219.
    • 00:54:19And also, probably more importantly, now that we've
    • 00:54:23kind of formally incorporated this large load forecast
    • 00:54:28into the LTF.
    • 00:54:31LTF or the long term load forecast,
    • 00:54:36if that's going to be ERCOT's base case load forecast for the CDR for
    • 00:54:39calculating reserve margins, or how that will look, or will
    • 00:54:43there be another tab where we calculate reserve margins
    • 00:54:47with the new large load? It's not on the main page. I think
    • 00:54:51now that we're actually incorporated that into
    • 00:54:54the Permian Basin reliability plan and formalized it for transmission planning,
    • 00:54:58that it needs to be incorporated in the CDR a
    • 00:55:01more direct way. I'm just wondering if what the plan is for the CDR,
    • 00:55:04if anyone can address that.
    • 00:55:08Yeah. Hi, everyone, this is Pete Warenken. Can you hear me okay?
    • 00:55:11Yes, sir. Great. So we're
    • 00:55:15actually meeting this, this week internally to talk about handling
    • 00:55:19the load forecast. So I can't give any details
    • 00:55:23about that until we talk again.
    • 00:55:26There's a couple of possibilities on how we would present that information.
    • 00:55:30So, again, there could be a tab, or separate tabs
    • 00:55:34that show, again, different forecasts.
    • 00:55:37For example, we have the two categories of
    • 00:55:41large loads, the contracted loads,
    • 00:55:44and then, for lack of a better term, other loads, which would
    • 00:55:47be so called officer letters or anything else that
    • 00:55:51would be in that group. So we'll make
    • 00:55:54a decision on that. And the intent is to provide as much information as we
    • 00:55:58can in that October SAWG meeting.
    • 00:56:02We'll have to coordinate with Kevin,
    • 00:56:05obviously, on the.
    • 00:56:08What topics that we want to get into, but the intent
    • 00:56:12is to talk about, at least at high level, the load forecast.
    • 00:56:15I'd also like to present a mock up
    • 00:56:19of the CDR. There have been some mock ups presented
    • 00:56:23at prior SAWG meetings. So we'll resurrect one of the
    • 00:56:27old mock ups and then present that in
    • 00:56:31terms of what would be incorporated from NPRR1219
    • 00:56:36and also touch base on effective load carrying capabilities
    • 00:56:40as well, because that's a major part of that NPRR.
    • 00:56:44So I guess. Bill, did I answer all the questions
    • 00:56:47you had? It sounds like so you'll bring the
    • 00:56:52updates to the October 25 meeting?
    • 00:56:57Okay. Yes. So, yeah, I want to be transparent on that and
    • 00:57:01then get WMS input in November,
    • 00:57:06and that will give us enough time to make any changes in terms
    • 00:57:09of formatting and anything
    • 00:57:13else that we can implement as far as supplemental information.
    • 00:57:17We can work on that at the SAWG meeting and then get
    • 00:57:20WMS to weigh in hopefully on that. If you do a separate
    • 00:57:24tab for the large load forecast, are you also going
    • 00:57:28to show reserve margins that result? I think it's,
    • 00:57:32again, the whole point of this is resource adequacy risk, and I,
    • 00:57:36in the last couple DRRS, we don't show any impact
    • 00:57:39to resource adequacy from this large load. We can't keep doing
    • 00:57:42that. People need to be aware. We will talk
    • 00:57:46about that internally. One idea is to
    • 00:57:49look at the interconnection queue, and just like we currently do
    • 00:57:53in the CDR, we have a scenarios tab where we
    • 00:57:56look at different milestones for
    • 00:58:00each of the projects, and we basically
    • 00:58:04say, okay, you have to meet everything for the planning guide to be
    • 00:58:07included that's the most restrictive, and then have scenarios that
    • 00:58:11are less restrictive. So there's a possibility that we
    • 00:58:15could include resources that we wouldn't normally
    • 00:58:18include in the CDR based on the formal eligibility criteria.
    • 00:58:23So I think it's reasonable to show what that might look like.
    • 00:58:26But obviously, that's an ERCOT management
    • 00:58:30call on exactly what we want to put in there. And we also
    • 00:58:34need to get feedback from the commission on what they'd like to see there.
    • 00:58:37So that's probably more complicated than just showing the load forecast,
    • 00:58:41obviously. Yep. Understood.
    • 00:58:44Thanks. Sure. Thank you, Bill. Eric Goff,
    • 00:58:51just to comment on the,
    • 00:58:54I guess, items number all of the A, B and C.
    • 00:59:00So I think
    • 00:59:04I agree with the several commenters and item
    • 00:59:07c that the commission needs to help us figure
    • 00:59:11out how we're meeting the resource adequacy in the market,
    • 00:59:14rather than doing it for one off and ERCOT working groups.
    • 00:59:18While I appreciate the sentiment that DRRS can
    • 00:59:22be a contributor to resource adequacy, and, you know, I believe it will be,
    • 00:59:27I'm just a little uncomfortable doing this in
    • 00:59:31bytes rather than getting direction from the
    • 00:59:34commission about ancillary services, especially given
    • 00:59:38that these are in flight and a
    • 00:59:42holistic review of ancillary services is occurring based on
    • 00:59:46commission staff and commissioner guidance.
    • 00:59:51So I'm just curious, what will be
    • 00:59:54the discussion at the next meeting? Will it
    • 00:59:58be that same topic or what comments are
    • 01:00:01we expecting from ERCOT?
    • 01:00:10I see. Gordon's Gordon, do you want to comment to
    • 01:00:13that? Sure. I hope you can
    • 01:00:17hear me. Okay. The comments that. The comments
    • 01:00:20that we referenced that we were going to be filing are related to
    • 01:00:24the issue of the sloped demand curve and
    • 01:00:28modifying that. That was a part of the discussion at
    • 01:00:31WMWG as well as part of Katie's
    • 01:00:35presentation at SAWG as a point of common agreement. And so that
    • 01:00:39that will form the basis of our comments or form
    • 01:00:43the basis of our comments there. I think we expressed SSWG
    • 01:00:48some of our concerns overall about the
    • 01:00:52use of DRRS as a resource adequacy
    • 01:00:56tool and some of the market effects. I think we
    • 01:01:01continue to have those concerns and we'll
    • 01:01:06continue to express them if DRRS becomes
    • 01:01:09a primary tool for satisfying resource adequacy as opposed.
    • 01:01:13Opposed to having sort of ancillary benefits towards resource adequacy,
    • 01:01:17but remaining an operational tool, which is kind of the
    • 01:01:21basis upon which we've been undertaking our design. So I just wanted
    • 01:01:25to clarify. The comments that we are or
    • 01:01:29that we prepared were not specific to the
    • 01:01:33issue of DRRS as a resource adequacy
    • 01:01:37mechanism, but more to the design of
    • 01:01:40the demand curve. Just wanted to be clear.
    • 01:01:45Thank you for that clarification. And Dave put in the comments
    • 01:01:49that her comments on that issue were filed. Ten one.
    • 01:01:53I just want to just for the agenda today,
    • 01:01:57this will also be discussed during the WMWG report,
    • 01:02:01and then we have this as one of our tabled items.
    • 01:02:05I do think this question about the policy and
    • 01:02:09how we move forward. Just speaking
    • 01:02:12as someone who's asked to lead a
    • 01:02:17subcommittee this year, and knowing that this particular one is
    • 01:02:20out of legislation and has a due date that we
    • 01:02:25were told we didn't need to worry about. But I do worry
    • 01:02:29about this one getting bogged down, but also understanding that we need a
    • 01:02:33policy direction if there is a real question about that. So again,
    • 01:02:38I know there's going to be a couple of opportunities here to talk about this,
    • 01:02:41and I'd like to also hear the WMWG report.
    • 01:02:45But with that said, I'm going to go back to the queue and Katie Rich,
    • 01:02:49you're up. Yeah, I think I have about
    • 01:02:52three comments to make, just based on what the last couple of
    • 01:02:56folks have said. One thing to be clear about
    • 01:03:00in our presentation is that we are not saying it's
    • 01:03:03the only resource adequacy tool. We're saying that it is a
    • 01:03:06resource adequacy tool and should be recognized. I think the statute's
    • 01:03:10been very clear on that. So I'm not trying to rehash what was in
    • 01:03:14our presentation, but it is an important thing. I think there are parallel
    • 01:03:18paths, which we are pursuing at the commission as well.
    • 01:03:22But we do have, you know, but the NPRR is before it,
    • 01:03:25so it is timely to, you know, file our comments,
    • 01:03:29which we did, and have those considered.
    • 01:03:32And then on the comments that ERCOT spiled,
    • 01:03:35we. We would like another working group meeting to discuss that,
    • 01:03:39what they propose for the slope demand curve.
    • 01:03:45Thank you, Katie. Lori, you're up. Thank you
    • 01:03:49so much. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am.
    • 01:03:52Great. I just wanted to say, in response to Eric's
    • 01:03:56question that the luminant comments were only filed
    • 01:04:00a few days before the meeting and wasn't sure whether everyone even had
    • 01:04:03a chance to fully digest them. They were fairly lengthy.
    • 01:04:07I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that everyone views the statute
    • 01:04:10the same way, so there might be a difference of opinion.
    • 01:04:13And, you know, I don't want to preclude any conversation on
    • 01:04:18any of these topics. As we all know, the commission has
    • 01:04:21asked stakeholders to really develop any counter
    • 01:04:25arguments, if there are any. So I just want to make sure that opportunity still
    • 01:04:28exists. Thanks so much. Thank you,
    • 01:04:32Lori. Okay.
    • 01:04:35Seeing no one else in the queue. Kevin, do you have anything else?
    • 01:04:42That was it for me, so. All right, great report
    • 01:04:46for the discussion on October 25. Yes,
    • 01:04:49thank you for your work with SAWG and very
    • 01:04:54important work. Thank you for leading that group. Next,
    • 01:04:57let's go to item eight and wholesale market working group.
    • 01:05:01Blake Holt, are you on the line?
    • 01:05:05Yes, sir. This is Blake Holt. Can you hear me, Eric? Yes,
    • 01:05:08sir. Good deal. Brittany, you can go ahead and go to slide three,
    • 01:05:11please.
    • Clip 8 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Blake Holt
      01:05:15 All right, the first item up for discussion was NPRR1229,
    • 01:05:19and Stack discussed their NPRR, which seeks to
    • 01:05:23add financial protection when a resource is operating in a
    • 01:05:27mandatory CMP and is subsequently tripped offline
    • 01:05:30due to an event that's out of their control. And as of the most
    • 01:05:34recent comments, compensation would be given for lost
    • 01:05:37opportunity, breakage, and startup costs.
    • 01:05:42Additionally, during the meeting, STEC answered some policy questions that were posed
    • 01:05:46by ERCOT. And in terms of conversation
    • 01:05:49from the group, there were some responses that centered
    • 01:05:52around how operational actions are currently compensated.
    • 01:05:56And there were some concerns raised about the excessive coverage
    • 01:06:00introduced by 1229. And in terms of next month,
    • 01:06:04I think we still need to have this on the discussion queue,
    • 01:06:09and we'll need to bring this back up again. So no progress in
    • 01:06:13terms of moving this forward next slide for
    • 01:06:26drrs. The IMM introduced their comments which
    • 01:06:30stated their preference for a sloped demand curve for the product.
    • 01:06:35There was some high level discussion about luminance comments
    • 01:06:39as WMWG fell ahead of the SAWG
    • 01:06:43discussion, but the majority of that conversation was was covered
    • 01:06:47by SAWG as Kevin detailed
    • 01:06:51to y'all. Additionally, Calpine mentioned that they were
    • 01:06:55in discussions with ERCOT on a combined cycle
    • 01:06:59concept, but that conversation was not yet ripe for
    • 01:07:02WMWG. Mister Blakey, I did want
    • 01:07:06to pose a question to the group here as it
    • 01:07:10seems like the SAWG conversation
    • 01:07:14had some life and there doesn't seem to be a specific issue
    • 01:07:17for WMWG to discuss at this
    • 01:07:21time. I wanted to see if the group thought it might be more efficient
    • 01:07:25to consolidate these discussions at
    • 01:07:29SAWG.
    • 01:07:33Okay, I see we have a comment.
    • 01:07:36Eric, do you have a comment on that question?
    • 01:07:40Like, I think that makes sense with maybe one asterisk
    • 01:07:44based on your discussion about the
    • 01:07:48combined cycle issue. I don't know if that would be more
    • 01:07:52profit for WMWG until we see what it is, but if we're
    • 01:07:56only talking about resource adequacy and demand curves, then maybe we can keep it there
    • 01:08:00at Sawg. Gotcha. That makes
    • 01:08:04sense. Eric. We can keep an agenda item up.
    • 01:08:09I'm unsure of the progress of those conversations, so we
    • 01:08:12can at least keep it on the agenda and if there is some progress
    • 01:08:15we can be prepared to discuss.
    • 01:08:20Yeah, I personally like that idea, Blake, of kind
    • 01:08:24of having to focus at Sawg. Kevin,
    • 01:08:27are you. How do you feel about that proposal?
    • 01:08:31Is that. I'm fine with that. Again,
    • 01:08:35I think we've tried to make everything go through one
    • 01:08:38location. So having all the discussions, I'm fine with.
    • 01:08:42Okay, anyone else have any comments
    • 01:08:46or concerns about the proposal?
    • 01:08:52Comment from Bryan. Go ahead.
    • 01:08:57Just to start, I'm comfortable with the proposal.
    • 01:09:01And just for transparency, it's really two separate
    • 01:09:04issues. The issue, I think Sawg
    • 01:09:08is how much and the
    • 01:09:11demand curve. My issue is really about
    • 01:09:15who qualifies and I think they're
    • 01:09:19kind of separate issues.
    • 01:09:25Okay, Michael Jewell, you have a comment?
    • 01:09:34Yep, I'm enjoying the double mute as well.
    • 01:09:37Similar situation, you know, perspective as
    • 01:09:40Bryan. There's issues with regard to what resources are going
    • 01:09:44to be eligible. That's not necessarily a SAWG issue.
    • 01:09:47Absolutely happy to have the discussion at SAWG. You know, if it's
    • 01:09:51easier to go ahead and consolidate it, but just recognizing that there's different aspects
    • 01:09:56to what's being debated here.
    • 01:10:02Yeah, that makes sense. You know, nothing precludes
    • 01:10:07us from having that discussion at WMS as well.
    • 01:10:12Any other questions or comments? Does that give you what you need?
    • 01:10:16Blake? Yes sir, loud and clear.
    • 01:10:20Okay. All right, we're good to move to the next slide.
    • 01:10:30WMWG should be done with NPRR1238.
    • 01:10:35I don't think there are any other market conversations to be had.
    • 01:10:38However, I don't think this one should be up for a vote today at
    • 01:10:42WMS. We've heard some discussions at ROS last
    • 01:10:45Thursday that ERCOT is planning on filing some comments ahead
    • 01:10:49of the October 15 OWG, but it's my understanding
    • 01:10:53that the language should not affect any market mechanisms. So so
    • 01:10:57we probably should just stay tuned for that instead of taking any
    • 01:11:00action. Next slide
    • 01:11:08for NPRR1241 luminant did formally present this
    • 01:11:12NPRR and describe that it is intended to add a
    • 01:11:15proportional clawback mechanism for firm fuel supply,
    • 01:11:19services or resources during a watch.
    • 01:11:22ERCOT did not give an opinion on the NPRR, but some stakeholders
    • 01:11:26expressed concern that the clawback was not stringent enough.
    • 01:11:31I believe that there might be a need for more discussion
    • 01:11:34at the next WMS, so I'd like the group to take take
    • 01:11:38it up one more time next month. So stay tuned
    • 01:11:41for that next
    • 01:11:45slide.
    • 01:11:49This was the longest discussion at the meeting.
    • 01:11:53It was about the card allocation and the current card
    • 01:11:56allocation keys in on the peak interval of every month,
    • 01:12:00and this creates a perverse incentive for loads to over
    • 01:12:04consume in certain hours to maximize congestion revenues,
    • 01:12:08and could be especially prone to exploitation from large
    • 01:12:12flexible loads. It's worth noting that neither the IMM or
    • 01:12:16ERCOT has presented evidence that this behavior is actually happening,
    • 01:12:20but there is an incentive for it to happen.
    • 01:12:24Cameron with the IMM brought an analysis that would support shifting the
    • 01:12:27allocation to a lrs average of 50
    • 01:12:31peak demand hours in each month. The benefit of
    • 01:12:35this method is it aligns with the exposure to historical congestion
    • 01:12:38rent, but it does serve to shift the allocation from residential
    • 01:12:42and noe loads to large CNI loads.
    • 01:12:46Shams, on behalf of Georgetown presented a method that
    • 01:12:49would allocate this year's monthly card
    • 01:12:52disbursements based on last year's 4CP averages.
    • 01:12:56The justification here is that entities that pay for Tcost would
    • 01:13:00receive the benefits of the card allocation. However,
    • 01:13:03it doesn't reflect the seasonality that the the current allocation takes
    • 01:13:07into place. And then lastly,
    • 01:13:10Katie with luminant proposed an additional method which would take into
    • 01:13:13account the top 60 to 120 hours per month.
    • 01:13:17And the benefit here is that the complexity of the method would be difficult
    • 01:13:21to predict and it would preserve some of the seasonality,
    • 01:13:25however, the complexity, could present some reallocation headaches for
    • 01:13:28those that represent multiple customers. So we intend
    • 01:13:32to continue these discussions on the methods next
    • 01:13:36month, and that discussion will take place on
    • 01:13:40October 18. And that concludes my report,
    • 01:13:46Blake, on that last item. Just curious
    • 01:13:50about it. Sounds like, from the
    • 01:13:54report and listening to the meeting, that ERCOT
    • 01:13:57and the IMM are sort of on the same page, and then there's. There's two
    • 01:14:01other alternatives. Do we know if those
    • 01:14:05alternatives are acceptable? Or is there any
    • 01:14:09potential here for kind of coming together
    • 01:14:13into one proposal? Or is
    • 01:14:18it going to be a question of. We have three different ideas and
    • 01:14:22it's going to be a matter up to ERCOT to decide which one to file
    • 01:14:25or. Or what do you think is going to happen there? So my interpretation
    • 01:14:29of last month's conversation was sort of just the
    • 01:14:33presentation of the ideas, and then folks were supposed to take
    • 01:14:37those concepts back to their shop and think more closely about them
    • 01:14:41and develop an opinion to share next month
    • 01:14:45in terms of next steps. I'll let ERCOT speak
    • 01:14:49to their. Their intention on filing an
    • 01:14:53NPRR, but I think my take was they wanted to hear those opinions
    • 01:14:57shared next month before moving forward.
    • 01:15:03Okay. If anyone from ERCOT has
    • 01:15:06any different direction, I like the discussion
    • 01:15:11was very good and I thought
    • 01:15:14helpful. And I just was wondering, though, where we.
    • 01:15:18So, Dave, you have a comment? Hey, Eric.
    • 01:15:21And I think the way Blake shared it is
    • 01:15:25correct. I think that is the sort of path that we are on,
    • 01:15:28particularly Vistra's proposal, I think, was intended to be sort
    • 01:15:31of a compromise between what we had originally
    • 01:15:35talked about and how it works today. So I
    • 01:15:38think that very much in the spirit of
    • 01:15:42coming up with the compromise, of course, with the Georgetown,
    • 01:15:45city of Georgetown approach or alternative is pretty different.
    • 01:15:48I think we're still thinking through the ramifications of
    • 01:15:52going with an approach like that, both just technically
    • 01:15:55as well as what it may mean from more of a policy point of view,
    • 01:15:59and what the reaction to the market might be.
    • 01:16:02But anyways, hopefully we can continue to talk about it with the
    • 01:16:05working group and come to a place where we can file an NPRR,
    • 01:16:09because we'd still like to do that moving forward.
    • 01:16:13I just want to say thank you for your efforts on
    • 01:16:16this. You know, you do it all the time, but this one just is a
    • 01:16:19good example of bringing the issue forward,
    • 01:16:22looking for consensus. And then the
    • 01:16:25discussion was just really positive, I thought, just a really
    • 01:16:29good example of stakeholder process and appreciate
    • 01:16:33everyone working together and trying to come up with a. With a solution
    • 01:16:37on something that needs to be addressed and doing it
    • 01:16:40before you file it versus after and trying to
    • 01:16:43react. I thought this is just a really good example. So thank everyone
    • 01:16:47for your participation. And it sounds like
    • 01:16:52this can move forward to the next meeting and hopefully we can get to
    • 01:16:55a point where you can file an NPRR and it can move through the process
    • 01:16:58rather quickly. So anyone else have any comments
    • 01:17:01on this one?
    • 01:17:06Anything else, Blake? No, sir.
    • 01:17:09That's it. Awesome.
    • 01:17:13Very good report. I'll just
    • 01:17:16say thank you to all the working groups. That's the three that I've
    • 01:17:19met this month, but they're all working hard and just really appreciate the
    • 01:17:23leadership and the discussions that go on at these working groups.
    • 01:17:28It's vital and it really is important
    • Clip 8.1 - Break
      01:17:31to the stakeholder process. So thank you all. We now have
    • 01:17:35the break. It's 10:50 on my computer,
    • 01:17:38so let's come back after ten minutes.
    • 01:17:42Let's come back at eleven and we'll resume with item number
    • 01:17:45nine.
    • 01:17:53It.
    • 01:28:38Okay, it's 11:00 a.m. let's go ahead and resume our meeting.
    • Clip 9 - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
      01:28:43 Go to item number nine. A WMS revision request tabled
    • Clip 9.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG
      01:28:48at WMS. SMOGRR028,
    • 01:28:53I believe is still within WMWG and I don't
    • 01:28:56believe they've methadore. So I think we can keep this one tabled.
    • Clip 9.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG
      01:29:00 And VCMRR042, and it's related
    • Clip 9.3 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042 SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - Possible Vote
      01:29:05 NPRR1242 are still pending discussion at RCWG. Does anyone have anything
    • 01:29:09they wanted to discuss on these two items?
    • Clip 10 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey
      01:29:14We'll just remain tabled with those. Let's move to item ten.
    • 01:29:18And these are new referrals that that came to us from PRS.
    • Clip 10.1 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
      01:29:22 First is NPRR1250,
    • 01:29:26RPS mandatory program termination.
    • 01:29:29It updates the protocols to comply with HB1500
    • 01:29:33and the retiring of the renewable portfolio standard
    • 01:29:37program. And ERCOT will continue to administer a
    • 01:29:41renewable energy credit training program that is voluntary.
    • 01:29:45There were some comments filed on September 10
    • 01:29:49by the.
    • 01:29:53Can't remember what that acronym stands for. Solar Energy Industries
    • 01:29:57association. And ERCOT has filed
    • 01:30:00comments, I believe, in response on October
    • 01:30:041. So with that preview, sounds like
    • 01:30:08this might be ready to move forward. But I wanted to see
    • 01:30:13if Calvin is on the line, see if there's anything he wanted to say about
    • 01:30:16this.
    • 01:30:21Calvin, are you on the line?
    • 01:30:26Or anyone from ERCOT want to say? Yeah.
    • 01:30:30Hi, Eric. Sorry, I was double muted. This is Kathryn Gross
    • 01:30:33with ERCOT legal. Calvin is out today, but I think
    • 01:30:37you summarized 1250 very well in
    • 01:30:41our comments that we filed. We just wanted to clarify that this
    • 01:30:46would not be implemented until September 1 of 2025.
    • 01:30:50So under the legislation, that is the point where
    • 01:30:54the mandatory solar REC program is supposed to
    • 01:30:58be phased out. So after that, it will just be voluntary
    • 01:31:02for everything. So we agreed with those with
    • 01:31:06the comments that were filed at PRS.
    • 01:31:10Very good. We have a question from Bill
    • 01:31:14Barnes. Bill, go ahead.
    • 01:31:18I think Eric Goff first.
    • 01:31:23Oh, I'm sorry. I nk,
    • 01:31:29yeah, my, my screen got rolled up. Let's go back.
    • 01:31:33I'm sorry, Eric golf, go ahead. Hey there.
    • 01:31:37WebEx is awkward, but I have a comment, not as my
    • 01:31:41residential consumer, but as a consultant for Texas
    • 01:31:45Energy Buyers alliance, one of my clients.
    • 01:31:48We're working on an NPRR that touches the
    • 01:31:51same topic and accomplishes this and
    • 01:31:55another objective, which is to enable
    • 01:31:59additional attributes to be traded in the new voluntary
    • 01:32:04market for reps.
    • 01:32:07And because of the timing of the
    • 01:32:12expiration of the RPS,
    • 01:32:15that NPRR also removes the RPS.
    • 01:32:20It's difficult to edit every section of this section of the protocols
    • 01:32:25twice and two NPRR's at the same time.
    • 01:32:29So I wonder if ERCOT is okay with keeping this
    • 01:32:33tabled so that way we can have a
    • 01:32:36choice of how to retire this program. And if not,
    • 01:32:40then I'll have to revise those comments. That new NPRR
    • 01:32:44to be comments on this NPRR, I think.
    • 01:32:49Okay. So as I understand it, you are thinking or
    • 01:32:53you're working on an NPRR that would accomplish the same
    • 01:32:56thing as 1250, but then add additional
    • 01:33:01attributes of that would deal with the voluntary
    • 01:33:05rec program. Yep. And both NPRR's
    • 01:33:09touch almost every section of the section
    • 01:33:13protocols. Okay. And you're just asking if this can
    • 01:33:17be tabled while you figure that out. Okay, yeah. This could be
    • 01:33:21table for one more month. Okay. Yeah. That makes
    • 01:33:24sense because I think for us, we just wanted to have
    • 01:33:28this change approved by the commission or some form of
    • 01:33:32change to make it clear that the mandatory
    • 01:33:36solar is being phased out by September 1 of 2025.
    • 01:33:40So we still have time. Okay,
    • 01:33:43great. Yeah. I appreciate that. And if WMS would
    • 01:33:48keep it tabled, it might have to be a separate ballot because I'm doing those
    • 01:33:51comments for another client. I apologize when I've got to do separate ballots.
    • 01:33:54Y'all understood.
    • 01:33:58Katie, apologies. I again,
    • 01:34:02my chat queue got rolled up. I see you were actually
    • 01:34:05first. So, Katie, go ahead. Thanks, Eric.
    • 01:34:09And thanks, Katherine. Eric Goff, can you tell me
    • 01:34:12what your additional attributes might include?
    • 01:34:16Because one of my questions was about including
    • 01:34:20hourly tracking. Is that on your list? Yes, I have an additional
    • 01:34:24comment, but I wanted to see if that was on your list. Yes.
    • 01:34:28Okay. That's encouraging.
    • 01:34:34I'm fine with tabling, but if we could have a
    • 01:34:37little more discussion on this
    • 01:34:41one, if you're going to be filing yours soon and we
    • 01:34:44can see them together, great. But this one just
    • 01:34:48seemed to be a bit incomplete to us.
    • 01:34:52You know, without the RPS, there's no compliance premiums,
    • 01:34:55there's no rec offsets, and no mandatory
    • 01:34:59requirement, you know, and so just some
    • 01:35:03of this seems a little bit like it doesn't fully
    • 01:35:07accomplish that. And then, like we said,
    • 01:35:10we would like to see some other enhancements for the voluntary program.
    • 01:35:13So would like to see what you're proposing, Eric. Yeah,
    • 01:35:17I'd be happy to. I've shared that with some
    • 01:35:21people, but it's not completely socialized yet, and if you
    • 01:35:24want to reach out, I'd be happy to talk to you. Anyone else on that
    • 01:35:28topic?
    • 01:35:34Katie, did you have another question or was that it?
    • 01:35:38That's it, Eric, just, if we're going to table it,
    • 01:35:42then that's fine. I just don't want us to move this
    • 01:35:45forward without the benefit of, I guess, seeing Eric's changes.
    • 01:35:50Very good. Okay. Bill Barnes,
    • 01:35:53you're up. Yeah, I just want to talk about the effective day.
    • 01:35:57This goes back to the deletion of the conference.
    • 01:36:00Confidentiality protections. I know
    • 01:36:03we've, from a market rules perspective, have approached
    • 01:36:07these situations in a couple different ways over the years.
    • 01:36:11The, the one that seems the most clear is to gray
    • 01:36:15box the deletion, so that we all
    • 01:36:18know when. When it's actually effective.
    • 01:36:22If we do what's recommended here, we're just,
    • 01:36:25I guess as part of the motion at PRS, we would say
    • 01:36:28proposed effective date of September 1.
    • 01:36:31What? How that is reflected in the actual protocols when
    • 01:36:35the NPRR is approved by the board and the commission,
    • 01:36:39does market rules then insert a gray box, or how do we know that
    • 01:36:43the deletion of the confidentiality provision isn't effective until
    • 01:36:46September 1 if it's not gray boxed?
    • 01:36:53Katherine, do you have a response?
    • 01:36:58Yeah, that's a good question. I wasn't sure if someone from market rules could
    • 01:37:02help out Corey.
    • 01:37:06Looks like Corey's trying to help. Okay.
    • 01:37:10Hey, I'll jump in. Bill, you teamed it up correctly.
    • 01:37:14Yes. And we've done this a couple times in the past where we put out
    • 01:37:17a future effective dates for things. So, yes, upon approval,
    • 01:37:21we would put gray boxes in for 1250. That would largely
    • 01:37:24say, delete the language above, effective September 1,
    • 01:37:282025, or whatever date the stakeholders agree on. So, yes, there would
    • 01:37:32be signposts in the current protocols
    • 01:37:35letting you know that coming up in September of 2025,
    • 01:37:39the language would be either modified or deleted,
    • 01:37:42whatever, 1250 or or the subsequent comments, you know, choose to
    • 01:37:46do to it. But, yes, there would be plenty of gray boxes throughout. And then
    • 01:37:49when we get to September 1, 2025, or whatever the effective date
    • 01:37:53is, we'd unbox 1250 and, you know, delete all the
    • 01:37:56stuff that needs deleting. Great. And so we just need to include that
    • 01:37:59as part of the motion when we approve it. PRS. Yep, you got
    • 01:38:03it. Okay, thanks.
    • 01:38:07Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
    • 01:38:12Sounds like there's there's interest in keeping this
    • 01:38:15table that WMS, but we need a
    • 01:38:19separate ballot and see if
    • 01:38:22we can get a motion to approve to
    • 01:38:27request that PRS continue to table this. NPRR, do we
    • 01:38:30have a motion?
    • 01:38:39I'll make that motion. Eric, this is Andy with consolation.
    • 01:38:43Very good. And Jim Calvin also
    • 01:38:47moves. So Jim, do you second that?
    • 01:38:51Yep. So Andy moves
    • 01:38:55to approve. Jim second. And we
    • 01:38:59will mark Eric golf as leaving the room.
    • 01:39:04He will not be present for this vote.
    • 01:39:07And then I'll turn it over to you. Brittany. Thank you.
    • 01:39:14Thanks, Eric. And other Eric,
    • 01:39:18I just wanted to confirm that I have the motion correct. You're just requesting PRS
    • 01:39:22continue to table 1250.
    • 01:39:26That's my understanding. Does anyone else have it? Have a different thought.
    • 01:39:34All right, thank you. Thank you all very much. We'll begin
    • 01:39:38with the consumer segment, starting with Mark Smith.
    • 01:39:42Yes.
    • 01:39:45Preeti.
    • 01:39:48Yes. And Rick.
    • 01:39:53Yes, thank you all.
    • 01:39:56On to the cooperative segment. Blake.
    • 01:39:59Yes. Lucas.
    • 01:40:03Yes.
    • 01:40:06Eric. Thank you. Yes,
    • 01:40:09thank you. And Jim. Yes, thank you. Brittany.
    • 01:40:14Thank you all. On to the independent generator segment.
    • 01:40:18Teresa? Yes, thank you,
    • 01:40:20Brittany. Tom.
    • 01:40:24Yes.
    • 01:40:27Andy? Yes, thanks, Brittany.
    • 01:40:31Thanks. And Bryan.
    • 01:40:38Bryan Sams.
    • 01:40:44Okay, Bryan, we'll try Bryan again in a second.
    • 01:40:49Onto the independent power marketers.
    • 01:40:53Okay, thank you, Bryan. Shane
    • 01:40:56Forrest. Yes, thank you,
    • 01:41:00Amanda.
    • 01:41:07Amanda DeLeon.
    • 01:41:11Okay, we'll come back. Robert? Yes, thank you.
    • 01:41:14Brittany. And Ian.
    • 01:41:18Yes, thank you, Brittany. Thank you. Amanda. I see
    • 01:41:22your yes vote there in the chat. Thank you very much.
    • 01:41:25Okay. Independent retail electric provider bill.
    • 01:41:29Yes, let's see. I don't
    • 01:41:32think Anoosh is on the line, but.
    • 01:41:36And then you should, in case you've dialed in.
    • 01:41:43Okay. Joshua.
    • 01:41:46Yes,
    • 01:41:50and I don't know if Amir is on the
    • 01:41:54line, but I'll call for Amir Khan
    • 01:41:57in case you've dialed in.
    • 01:42:02Okay, thank you. On to investor owned
    • 01:42:05utilities. David. Yes.
    • 01:42:10Ivan.
    • 01:42:16Ivan Velazquez.
    • 01:42:20Okay, Jim. Yes,
    • 01:42:23thanks, Bernie. And Rob for Vincent.
    • 01:42:28Yes, thanks, Brittany. Thank you.
    • 01:42:32Let me see if I have Ivan on the line.
    • 01:42:37I thought he had joined us.
    • 01:42:42Ivan, I see you're off mute. Are you trying to vote?
    • 01:42:49There you go. Thank you very much. See you in the chat.
    • 01:42:53And finally, municipal segment. David?
    • 01:42:57Yes.
    • 01:43:00I don't believe Ken Lindbergh is with us today,
    • 01:43:03but I'll call just in case. Ken Lindbergh,
    • 01:43:12Curtis. Yes. And Fei?
    • 01:43:17Yes. Thank you. Thank y'all.
    • 01:43:27No, thought I did.
    • 01:43:34And the motion carries unanimously. Thank you all so much.
    • 01:43:39Thank you, Brittany. Okay,
    • Clip 10.2 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process
      01:43:43next new item is NPRR1251,
    • 01:43:47updated FFSS fuel replacement cost recovery process.
    • 01:43:51Implement several improvements to the firm fuel service recovery
    • 01:43:55process. Ino, I believe you
    • 01:43:59are the ERCOT sponsor of this. Are you on the line? And would
    • 01:44:02you like to hear
    • 01:44:07me go ahead? Yes, sir. Yes.
    • 01:44:10As I discuss it, PRS with this NPRR,
    • 01:44:14ERCOT is trying to clarify that resources that
    • 01:44:18are providing fuel supply services are able to
    • 01:44:22refuel utilizing
    • 01:44:27existing stocks without having to purchase the
    • 01:44:31burn fuel. And if they do,
    • 01:44:36then ERCOT will compensate those resources with
    • 01:44:40either either buy, either purchase, make new purchases
    • 01:44:44for the fuel that was consumed within 30 days
    • 01:44:48or if, or based on the fuel oil
    • 01:44:51price. And the fuel oil price includes
    • 01:44:56five cents per gallon to cover the cost of
    • 01:45:00transportation. So basically this
    • 01:45:03is just to make sure that everybody knows that they can restock
    • 01:45:06their services using inventories,
    • 01:45:10existing inventories.
    • 01:45:15Are there any questions?
    • 01:45:18We have a comment from Katie Rich. Katie, go ahead.
    • 01:45:23Yeah, you know, we appreciate you filing this one, but I
    • 01:45:27like a little more time to look at it and discuss it. Wondered if
    • 01:45:30you'd be okay if, if we refer this over to RCWG? Oh,
    • 01:45:34sure. No worries. That sounds like a good idea.
    • 01:45:39Okay. Any, any other questions or comments?
    • 01:45:45Proposal is to move this or table and refer to resource
    • 01:45:50cost working group and believe
    • 01:45:54this would be a combo item. Is there any opposition to that
    • 01:46:01hearing? None. We will add this to the combo ballot to refer to
    • Clip 11 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
      01:46:05our CWG. Thank you. Thank you. Next
    • Clip 11.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
      01:46:09 we have item eleven, and
    • Clip 11.2 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG
      01:46:14I don't have anything new on NPRR1070. NPRR1200,
    • Clip 11.3 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG
      01:46:16 NPRR1202. We still show WMWG.
    • 01:46:21I believe we've, we've taken that off their plate so we
    • 01:46:25could remove that. I think we're waiting
    • 01:46:29on the large load task force and
    • 01:46:33we can, we can bring that back if we need to, but I think we
    • 01:46:36can just refer the reference to WMWG and leave that table
    • 01:46:39that WMS on
    • Clip 11.4 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG
      01:46:43NPRR1214. This was in the report from
    • 01:46:47Alex and I believe they recommended this remain table so
    • 01:46:53they'll discuss red lines at their next meeting.
    • 01:46:57Brings us to 1229, which was discussed by Blake
    • 01:47:01and the WMWG report.
    • Clip 11.5 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG
      01:47:04 And this is 1229 real
    • 01:47:08time constraint management plan. And my
    • 01:47:11understanding from his report is that there's still discussions between
    • 01:47:15TAC and ERCOT, and they will bring that back next month.
    • 01:47:19Any discussions on that one?
    • Clip 11.6 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG and WMWG
      01:47:24Okay. And then 1235, we discussed earlier.
    • 01:47:28And so, as we said that, you know, SAWG had
    • 01:47:32a good discussion on. On 1235.
    • 01:47:36WMWG had a good discussion on 1235. We.
    • 01:47:40We discussed earlier that we
    • 01:47:44would take off the assignment to WMWG
    • 01:47:48for now and try to consolidate the discussions
    • 01:47:52at a working group level. At SAWG. I think there
    • 01:47:56was support for that. And.
    • 01:48:00But then we also have this question of the policy issue.
    • 01:48:05Is there any discussion on the.
    • 01:48:10Whether we should take any
    • 01:48:14action? Is there any action that we can take to try to
    • 01:48:17get these policy questions addressed
    • 01:48:21before we move forward, or do we try to move forward and present
    • 01:48:25that to the commission and see if they agree?
    • 01:48:28Or does anyone have any feedback or
    • 01:48:31comment on 1235?
    • 01:48:44Okay, sounds like we're happy just to let SAWG continue their discussions
    • 01:48:49next month. Believe Kevin said they meet on the
    • 01:48:5225th. I guess I would.
    • 01:48:57Okay, I see someone in the queue. Michael Jewellen. Michael, go ahead.
    • 01:49:02Thanks, Eric. I think the question with regard to the policy
    • 01:49:05issue about whether DRRS should be a,
    • 01:49:09you know, specifically tagged as a resource adequacy tool,
    • 01:49:14probably needs to be addressed by the commission before ERCOT
    • 01:49:18goes forward and tries to create the IR's in that manner.
    • 01:49:22And then, you know, punch it over to the commission based
    • 01:49:25on what. What the chairman, Chairman Gleason has said.
    • 01:49:29You know, there just seems to be a concern about the cart before the horse
    • 01:49:32on a. On a significant policy issue like this. I just wanted
    • 01:49:36to follow up, you know, on that question that you were asking.
    • 01:49:40Yes, that's very helpful. That's exactly what I was trying
    • 01:49:44to see. If folks
    • 01:49:48share that concern.
    • 01:49:51I don't know if you all have any comments. One question I
    • 01:49:55would have is whether you think there
    • 01:49:58might be an opportunity at this week's board meeting and maybe with the RNN
    • 01:50:02committee. I know the commissioners often
    • 01:50:05attend those meetings as well. It feels like this might be
    • 01:50:09something worth raising at that level.
    • 01:50:13And I wondered if there's anyone from ERCOT that might be
    • 01:50:16able to share whether there's any plans or if you
    • 01:50:20all are prepared in any way to discuss this when
    • 01:50:24you meet with the board later this week.
    • 01:50:35And maybe while you all are thinking about that question, I'll turn it over to
    • 01:50:38Katie. Katie, do you have a comment?
    • 01:50:42Just a little concern about. So that question,
    • 01:50:46as we've talked about at TAC and trying to improve the stakeholder
    • 01:50:50process is for stakeholders and
    • 01:50:54ERCOT to be able to have input to the board. So a little concern about
    • 01:50:57taking that approach unless it's noticed and
    • 01:51:01we're allowed to have feedback as well.
    • 01:51:07Okay. That's valid point. Thank you.
    • 01:51:11Any other questions or comments?
    • 01:51:22Okay, well, we will turn it over to Caitlin.
    • 01:51:26Caitlin Smith. Thank you. Do you have a comment?
    • 01:51:31Hey, Eric. I agree with Katie's comments.
    • 01:51:35This is Caitlin Smith from Jupiter Power. But talking a little bit in the
    • 01:51:39TAC chair role. I agree with Katie's comments and I
    • 01:51:42suspect ERCOT has to get these materials in,
    • 01:51:46I think, well before a week ahead of these meetings.
    • 01:51:50We are trying to start to update the board
    • 01:51:53a little bit more in the TAC presentation and
    • 01:51:58we're including subcommittee highlights. So this is something,
    • 01:52:02I don't see that it's in our highlights for the wholesale market
    • 01:52:05subcommittee, but it's something I could certainly kind of speak to
    • 01:52:10in voiceover and say this is a discussion that
    • 01:52:14is happening at WMS. I don't think I could request feedback,
    • 01:52:18but I could highlight that as a discussion that's taking place
    • 01:52:22that might need some input at some point.
    • 01:52:28Thank you.
    • 01:52:31Any other questions or comments?
    • 01:52:37Yeah, and I just want to say I totally appreciate
    • 01:52:40Katie's comment and concern.
    • 01:52:45I think on this specific issue, we definitely
    • 01:52:48would want to be able to have folks provide any comment
    • 01:52:52and, and notice and that sort of thing. But this overall
    • 01:52:56question that seems to keep coming up about getting policy direction
    • 01:53:00before we move forward is also seems like it's,
    • 01:53:04it's affecting our discussions and
    • 01:53:08what we're able to figure
    • 01:53:11out how we're going to solution and get it to the commission. So,
    • 01:53:15John Ross, Harvard, do you have a comment?
    • 01:53:19Yeah. John. Russ Hubbard, can you all hear me? Yes, sir.
    • 01:53:24Perfect. Yeah. I just want to emphasize kind of some of what Michael Jewell was
    • 01:53:28saying is that I think this is definitely a
    • 01:53:32policy issue that the commission should be considering and not stakeholders.
    • 01:53:35And so I don't know if it's worth
    • 01:53:39setting aside that issue and trying to move forward with the NPRR
    • 01:53:45and reserving the more controversial issues for,
    • 01:53:48you know, the commission to opine on.
    • 01:53:53Thanks. Thank you.
    • 01:53:59Okay. Anything further on 1235?
    • 01:54:05I think from WMS perspective, we'll continue to look to
    • 01:54:08SAWG and, and then be
    • 01:54:11watching for any other opportunities on the policy discussions
    • 01:54:15as they come, come around. So thank you.
    • Clip 11.7 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG
      01:54:18 NPRR1238 was also mentioned in the WMWG
    • 01:54:22report and they, they requested it
    • 01:54:26remain tabled as there's comments from ERCOT that are pending
    • Clip 11.8 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service FFSS Availability and Hourly Standby Fee - WMWG
      01:54:30 NPRR1241. WMWG also
    • 01:54:34discussed and requested that that
    • 01:54:37remain tabled as well for further discussion. Anything anyone
    • 01:54:41would like to discuss on the tabled items?
    • 01:54:49Okay, if not, we are at item twelve, which is our combo
    • Clip 12 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey
      01:54:52ballot. And we've
    • 01:54:55added a few items through the course of our meeting,
    • 01:54:59and we will get those on the screen.
    • 01:55:03Looks like we only have two.
    • 01:55:09Wanted to confirm.
    • 01:55:15That's right. We voted out 1250. So 1251.
    • 01:55:19We voted the table for
    • 01:55:23review at RCWG. And we have our minutes. So any
    • 01:55:28questions? If not, I see that Eric Goff has moved for approval.
    • 01:55:32Do we have a second? Mark Smith.
    • 01:55:36A second. So with that, I will
    • 01:55:39turn it over to Brittany for a vote. Thank you.
    • 01:55:49Thank you, Eric. All right, so the two
    • 01:55:53items on the combo ballot will begin with ERCOT.
    • 01:55:56Yes. And Mark Smith.
    • 01:56:02Yes. Our movement and second.
    • 01:56:05Thank you all. Preeti.
    • 01:56:07Yes. And Rick?
    • 01:56:11Yes. Thank you. Consumers onto
    • 01:56:15the cooperative segment. Blake? Yes, ma'am.
    • 01:56:20Lucas. Yes.
    • 01:56:24Eric. Thank you. Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:56:29And Jim. Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:56:41And now for our independent generator segment. Teresa?
    • 01:56:45Yes.
    • 01:56:48Tom? Yes.
    • 01:56:52Andy? Yes. Thanks. Brittany and
    • 01:56:57Bryan? Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:57:01Thank you all. Independent power
    • 01:57:05marketer Shane Ferresmi. Yes, ma'am. Thank you,
    • 01:57:11Amanda.
    • 01:57:17Amanda, you voted in the chat last time. There you go. I see
    • 01:57:20that. Thank you. Robert. Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:57:25And Ian? Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:57:29Thank you. Independent retail electric providers.
    • 01:57:33Bill. Yes.
    • 01:57:37Has Anish joined us?
    • 01:57:41Okay. Joshua.
    • 01:57:44Yes.
    • 01:57:48And has Amir joined us?
    • 01:57:53I think so. Okay. Thank you all.
    • 01:57:56Investor owned utilities. David? Yes.
    • 01:58:01Ivan. Yes. Brittany. Thank you.
    • 01:58:06Jim. Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:58:10And Rob. For Vincent.
    • 01:58:13Yes. Thank you all.
    • 01:58:17And finally, municipal segment. David?
    • 01:58:21Yes.
    • 01:58:24I don't think Ken has joined us, but checking just in case.
    • 01:58:28Ken Lindberghen. All right.
    • 01:58:31Curtis. Yes.
    • 01:58:35And Fei? Yes. Thank you.
    • 01:58:41Thank you all very much. Motion carries unanimously.
    • 01:58:45Thanks again. Thank you,
    • Clip 13 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
      01:58:48Brittany. Okay, let's go to item 13 and
    • 01:58:52the other business and review of open action
    • 01:58:55items. Jim?
    • Clip 13.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
      01:59:02Yeah. So a couple of things that we
    • Clip 13.2 - Update Future Large Load Interconnection Reports
      01:59:06wanted to mention. So I guess,
    • 01:59:10for the TAC assignments that we were
    • 01:59:15under our purview, looking to
    • 01:59:20get some input or some thoughts on,
    • 01:59:23you know, maybe clearing
    • 01:59:27one of these off, whether it's to
    • 01:59:31figure out what the further define
    • 01:59:34or better define what the EPA regulation assignment was or is
    • 01:59:38or should be. I think we kind
    • 01:59:41of revised this during last year's structural review,
    • 01:59:45and I think went to TAC a few times to look for
    • 01:59:49their guidance. And perhaps this
    • 01:59:52could just be an item that's not
    • 01:59:56under our assignments, but more of a kind of an action that WMS takes
    • 02:00:00that if there are EPA regulations in the future that,
    • 02:00:04you know, it's just a natural role of
    • 02:00:07WMS to review those and its impacts.
    • 02:00:10So, you know, thoughts on probably
    • 02:00:15modifying that or going back to TAC and asking for some guidance there.
    • 02:00:20But then Eric and I were talking about the second TAC assignment
    • 02:00:25there for NPRR1230,
    • 02:00:28perhaps just leaving that on our list,
    • 02:00:34since I think NPRR1230 is relatively
    • 02:00:38new. It was just approved at the September 26 open meeting,
    • 02:00:42and I don't believe there has been,
    • 02:00:47I guess, enough movement on the shadow price caps
    • 02:00:50and the irols to have CMWG
    • 02:00:54or Winwick perform that analysis on, on those
    • 02:00:58impacts. So just a couple of TAC assignments, looking to
    • 02:01:02the group on some thoughts for
    • 02:01:06that, and then also just a call out
    • 02:01:10to the large load interconnection report. I know that
    • 02:01:14there's been a little bit of kind of
    • 02:01:18Texas two step on this. You know, it was
    • 02:01:21assigned over to WMS as kind
    • 02:01:25of a standing item. And then I think in the recent months, there was a
    • 02:01:28request attack that the
    • 02:01:31large load interconnection report just live at TAC instead
    • 02:01:35of a WMS. And so we had it on the agenda
    • 02:01:38to talk about, as you know, one last time.
    • 02:01:43But I think.
    • 02:01:46I think the direction from TAC is that this will live at
    • 02:01:51TAC going forward.
    • 02:01:55Looks like we have a question on that from Eric Garfield.
    • 02:02:02I certainly appreciate when TAC gives his direction on this,
    • 02:02:06about where it'll be kind of discussed, but there's
    • 02:02:10been consistent and constant chatter
    • 02:02:14about wanting to formalize this report in some way. And I
    • 02:02:18think Bill brought it up earlier. We talked about the CDR. How is this
    • 02:02:21included? How is it nothing?
    • 02:02:25Could we assign to a working group of your choice
    • 02:02:30building something into the protocols that protects the confidentiality
    • 02:02:35of customer information, but still provides this
    • 02:02:38data in some aggregated way that is broken out in
    • 02:02:42some way that continues to protect customer confidentiality.
    • 02:02:50You know, in other words, can we ask a working group to create this
    • 02:02:54report formally in the protocols in a way that is
    • 02:02:58broken down in some way that maintains confidentiality?
    • 02:03:03Would that be to mirror the current report,
    • 02:03:06but just maybe,
    • 02:03:09or maybe have some additional specificity around location
    • 02:03:13or other things? What's different than the generation
    • 02:03:17interconnection queue is that PURA says the customers own their
    • 02:03:20data, so we can't just disclose every single interconnection request,
    • 02:03:24but we can break it out at some level
    • 02:03:27of aggregation. And in
    • 02:03:32the past, WMS has dealt with that. Back when we were having,
    • 02:03:35I think, three solar resources, we were finally able to aggregate
    • 02:03:39it up. And now, that's been years ago, and we might be
    • 02:03:42at a point now with a large load queue where ERCOT
    • 02:03:47could provide some additional specificity and still maintain confidentiality.
    • 02:03:55So, just so I'm clear, Eric, your request is a little
    • 02:03:59nuanced, maybe from the discussion TAC they were talking about
    • 02:04:04having one forum to report. Yep. They didn't want to have to go to.
    • 02:04:07They didn't want to have to go to WMS. And, ROS, you're talking more about
    • 02:04:13helping define a protocol that would
    • 02:04:17protect customer information that goes into those reports.
    • 02:04:20Well, that plus just. I think the customer information is
    • 02:04:24already protected.
    • 02:04:27But just to get in the protocols that this report is created
    • 02:04:31in some sort of structured way,
    • 02:04:36I know probably in every meeting, people have asked for extra detail
    • 02:04:40about this report, and I think it would be timely
    • 02:04:44for us to formalize it now that that task force has concluded.
    • 02:04:52Yeah, I'm happy
    • 02:04:55for some. Yeah. Does anyone from ERCOT
    • 02:05:01have a comment on this? I know they.
    • 02:05:04They talk quite often about trying to be sure they don't,
    • 02:05:08you know, accidentally reveal customer information,
    • 02:05:12and I know that is a big issue for them.
    • 02:05:15I don't know if I've heard them talk about this being in
    • 02:05:19protocols, but that that may not be a bad plan.
    • 02:05:29Just to see if anyone from ERCOT has a comment. Hi, Davita.
    • 02:05:32Yes. Hi,
    • 02:05:36Eric. Can you confirm if you can hear me? Yes, ma'am.
    • 02:05:40Oh, awesome. Thank you, sir. And other. Eric,
    • 02:05:43we hear your comments, and I completely agree
    • 02:05:47with you that under the protocols, PURA, and the commission's
    • 02:05:50rule, there's already protection in place. So if
    • 02:05:54the concern is revelation of customer
    • 02:05:59information that's protected under PURA, I think that that base is
    • 02:06:02covered. Yeah, I also hear.
    • 02:06:07I didn't mean to interrupt you, but maybe I didn't clearly state my.
    • 02:06:11My request because of that. That wasn't my
    • 02:06:14request, but rather, given that
    • 02:06:18you all protect that information, what level of additional specificity
    • 02:06:22can reporting reveal so
    • 02:06:26generalized location, at some point,
    • 02:06:30people will provide additional information about the loads
    • 02:06:35in every meeting, it seems that people ask for additional
    • 02:06:38information. And so rather than having it be an informal request to ERCOT,
    • 02:06:42I thought it might make sense to formalize this report with
    • 02:06:46additional aggregated specificity,
    • 02:06:49knowing that you understood customer information.
    • 02:06:52Understood. And I think that we'd be
    • 02:06:55happy to have conversations with stakeholders
    • 02:06:59about how to formalize the report,
    • 02:07:02what types of information is useful to folks in the
    • 02:07:06report, and to the extent that you all think that it's
    • 02:07:10advisable, someone could. Could offer an
    • 02:07:13NPRR to specify to
    • 02:07:17what body we report and what information needs to be in there as
    • 02:07:21part of those conversations. I note something that you already did,
    • 02:07:25which is just that as there are more
    • 02:07:29loads, it's easier for us to provide aggregated
    • 02:07:32information because this is a random example that isn't
    • 02:07:36representative of the truth, but hopefully is an illustrative example that
    • 02:07:40will be helpful. Like if we did reporting by weather zone
    • 02:07:44and that was in the protocols, but there was only one large load in a
    • 02:07:47particular weather zone, we would not be able
    • 02:07:51to report on that weather zone. Right. So I
    • 02:07:55think we'd want to be mindful of the specificity that
    • 02:07:59we put into the protocols because that would then require. Require revision
    • 02:08:04as the facts on the ground change. But certainly
    • 02:08:08understand your point about wanting some formality,
    • 02:08:11and we're happy to have those conversations.
    • 02:08:15I think that to some extent we already have formality because we've been trying to
    • 02:08:18report on the same information from month to month. But again,
    • 02:08:23happy to get further guidance from y'all on what you think
    • 02:08:26is appropriate to include.
    • 02:08:34Thank you. Davina, I think. Clayton Greer, you have a comment?
    • 02:08:37Is the GIS report formalized in the protocols?
    • 02:08:43Yeah. I didn't remember it being in the protocols. So I'm wondering why we need
    • 02:08:47protocols for this. Can't we just do it?
    • 02:08:51I mean, I get that we want a form list of stuff so you're not
    • 02:08:54playing whack a mole, but, you know,
    • 02:08:58it seemed like anything that we can get would be improvement.
    • 02:09:01Thanks. Yep. Davita, you have a comment?
    • 02:09:06Yeah, I. I think that that's a fair point.
    • 02:09:09And certainly we will continue to do this reporting
    • 02:09:12regardless of whether or not it's. It's required under the protocols
    • 02:09:16as so long as y'all find it helpful. You know, if in the
    • 02:09:20future you say you no longer need to do this, then we'll stop. But obviously
    • 02:09:23that is not the will of the group right now. And we're happy to continue
    • 02:09:26providing the reports to whatever body you all think is the right one to
    • 02:09:30go to. That's where I'm concerned,
    • 02:09:33is if we have it in the protocols, that ability goes away, you kind of
    • 02:09:36lose. Then you have to introduce another NPRR to remove
    • 02:09:40it later, whereas we can just decide later if we want to.
    • 02:09:45Thank you.
    • 02:09:48Well, and just again, to level set, my understanding from what TAC
    • 02:09:51directed is they want the
    • 02:09:55reports TAC. And I guess if we
    • 02:09:59want a report, we would need to request that separately.
    • 02:10:02But I don't think that was what TAC supported. I think they
    • 02:10:06wanted this to all be y'all can correct me if
    • 02:10:10I'm wrong, but because we were
    • 02:10:13headed down a path of having reports,
    • 02:10:18but I think there was concern that there would be multiple
    • 02:10:21venues, and so they wanted everything at the TAC
    • 02:10:25level. And so as
    • 02:10:29far as what we get at WMS, I think we're going
    • 02:10:33to have to tune into TAC to get what we need TAC.
    • 02:10:40We had offered to continue getting reports to TAC
    • 02:10:44and tag voted otherwise. So just trying to live within
    • 02:10:47that direction. But also, I think
    • 02:10:51this is a good forum to help set, you know,
    • 02:10:54some of these discussions and, you know, whether,
    • 02:10:58whether these need to be in the protocols or not, I'm not sure pacs
    • 02:11:02going to get down to that level.
    • 02:11:10Eric, I'm not sure if we're giving you what you need, but you have any
    • 02:11:13further comments? Yeah, no,
    • 02:11:16just if we were to put it in a working group,
    • 02:11:19I think that would be good. And I
    • 02:11:23think it is in the planning guides in section seven.
    • 02:11:30Okay, that's good clarification. Do we, do we feel like we need this in the
    • 02:11:33planning guides? That would
    • 02:11:37actually be a good place for it if we actually had a list like
    • 02:11:41formal reporting permit.
    • 02:11:44The reason I was suggesting formalizing it wasn't to make it structured
    • 02:11:49and hard to change, but rather just give ERCOT the confidence about
    • 02:11:53how they released the information in an aggregated fashion.
    • 02:11:57Yeah, I agree. My preference is always to
    • 02:12:01keep stuff out. If we can leave it out, but. Because then it gets ugly.
    • 02:12:04But I mean, if we feel like we need something, then that
    • 02:12:08would be at least better than NPRR.
    • 02:12:17So, to Eric Blakey's
    • 02:12:21point of, you know, this, living at TAC
    • 02:12:24for right now, does that need to be
    • 02:12:28a conversation that happens at, and gets assigned back down to
    • 02:12:31WMS to move forward?
    • 02:12:36That's up to y'all.
    • 02:12:39I see it as separate topic slightly. One is TAC
    • 02:12:43receives the report, but separately,
    • 02:12:47you know, what, what information should be
    • 02:12:50posted and, and what fashion and what time timeliness.
    • 02:12:54So it certainly couldn't hurt to ask TAC about it if
    • 02:12:57you want to. But I think you can also just give an assignment
    • 02:13:04or we can talk about it next month, too. Whatever you want to do.
    • 02:13:07I think. I think given TAC's recent discussion, I wouldn't
    • 02:13:12mind given this a month. Let me present
    • 02:13:16this to TAC and see what direction they get.
    • 02:13:20Just if you were deciding which
    • 02:13:24working group would you assign this to?
    • 02:13:29I mean,
    • 02:13:36reporting this kind of stuff, but in the past, I think that solar
    • 02:13:40thing from years ago was at WMWG. So I think it's, as usual,
    • 02:13:44the chair's preference. Okay.
    • 02:13:48Your thought is WMWG or SAWG?
    • 02:13:52I, I think they both.
    • 02:13:55Maybe you can just let the chair say not at first.
    • 02:14:00Okay. No, I just.
    • 02:14:03Very helpful. Anything else on this?
    • Clip 13.2 - Update: Future Large Load Interconnection Reports
      02:14:13 On the large load interconnect report now,
    • 02:14:15but on the next bullet item for removing parking lot items,
    • 02:14:21whenever you're ready. Yep, I'm ready.
    • Clip 13.3 - Proposal to Remove Parking Lot Items from Monthly WMS Agenda
      02:14:25 So looking at our parking lot items,
    • 02:14:30it kind of makes, makes Eric and I cringe a little bit that we have
    • 02:14:34things from 2018, 2019 pre
    • 02:14:37Yuri. While these
    • 02:14:41are, were important issues back then,
    • 02:14:44they've just been kind of languishing here on
    • 02:14:47our parking lot items.
    • 02:14:50And I think the thought that
    • 02:14:54we had was whether or not we could remove
    • 02:14:58these parking lot items off of our plate.
    • 02:15:01And if these issues are still important or come up at
    • 02:15:05a later date, you know, they peek their heads back up again.
    • 02:15:09Maybe we can then do a better refinement of these and,
    • 02:15:14you know, put, put a new action item on instead of just
    • 02:15:17keeping these on our parking lot indefinitely.
      PauseEditCreate clip
    • Clip 13.4 - 2025 ERCOT Membership/Segment Representative Elections
      02:15:20 So that was kind of a proposal from
    • 02:15:24leadership. If that,
    • 02:15:27if, you know, it's agreeable by membership, we would, we would just like to clear
    • 02:15:31these off. I kind of
    • 02:15:34cleaned that list up a lot more,
    • 02:15:38so I'll pause. Any, any thoughts? I think. I think.
    • 02:15:42David Detelich,
    • 02:15:44question. Yeah, hello.
    • 02:15:47That second item about posting wholesale storage load, I think
    • 02:15:50that's our. Posted monthly in a couple of
    • 02:15:54places, I guess. The demand and energy report,
    • 02:15:58does that qualify as solving that item or no?
    • 02:16:06I think that's the problem, David. No one's looked at this list from
    • 02:16:10these working groups, to my knowledge. No one's looked at the list to say whether
    • 02:16:14it's done or not or whether it's still necessary or not.
    • 02:16:17And I think that's the problem with the parking lot, is no one looks at
    • 02:16:20it.
    • 02:16:23Yeah. And we can't recall. I mean, this, this was,
    • 02:16:27you know, before Eric and I's time and leadership. And so,
    • 02:16:31you know, not, not sure. Not sure what members
    • 02:16:35had in mind when they put this on the list in the first place would
    • 02:16:44encourage, if there is an issue there or a question, whether it's been resolved or
    • 02:16:47should be resolved or needs to be addressed.
    • 02:16:51You know, these working groups are always open
    • 02:16:57to added items to the agenda that folks want
    • 02:17:00to talk about. If you all see something here that you think,
    • 02:17:04wow, I forgot we were going to do that three years ago,
    • 02:17:07and we forgot all about it,
    • 02:17:10then maybe this list is helpful. But I can just say from my standpoint,
    • 02:17:14I never refer to this list,
    • 02:17:17and obviously no one's really taken a look at
    • 02:17:21it in over two years. So kind of
    • 02:17:25creates a risk when there's a list like this that folks
    • 02:17:30might think we're acting on, that we're really. I'm not. I haven't
    • 02:17:33heard anyone in the market bring one of these issues to
    • 02:17:37me. So that's, I think that's sort
    • 02:17:40of the question is whether the group would be okay with removing these
    • 02:17:44and if we ever needed the record. We've always got these attached to
    • 02:17:47our agendas from this date going back,
    • 02:17:51and so if we ever needed that record, we have it. But I
    • 02:17:55just don't, don't know that it adds anything to having it on our agenda.
    • 02:18:00And I see Bryan and Blake
    • 02:18:04in the chat made a good recommendation.
    • 02:18:08Basically put up, put a, put a date out
    • 02:18:12there to say, we'll remove
    • 02:18:15these unless somebody speaks up to keep them on.
    • 02:18:19Maybe put that date for the November meeting or something like that.
    • 02:18:23Yeah, that's fine. Now, I'm happy to, to keep
    • 02:18:27this on another month. Let these working groups allow
    • 02:18:31a discussion and recommendation at our next meeting.
    • 02:18:37I'm very open to what you all want to
    • 02:18:40do, but just don't want to set
    • 02:18:44an expectation that that's not going to be very helpful.
    • 02:18:52Okay. I think we can leave it on another month, and we'll, we'll decide
    • 02:18:57next month what to do about it.
    • 02:19:03I know you had election membership under yours,
    • 02:19:06but is
    • 02:19:09this someone from ERCOT? Want to give us an update on that?
    • 02:19:14This is Pamela. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am.
    • 02:19:18Okay, information for y'all. The 2025
    • 02:19:22membership and elections are coming up. Date of record
    • 02:19:25is Friday, November 1. Elections begin
    • 02:19:29the following Tuesday.
    • 02:19:38You're kind of fading out, Pamela.
    • 02:19:44Oh, I'm sorry. Did you not hear me? The date of
    • 02:19:48Friday, November 1.
    • 02:19:51Elections begin the following Tuesday, November.
    • 02:19:57That's all.
    • 02:20:02Okay.
    • 02:20:06So she said, data record, November 1, and then
    • 02:20:09elections begin the following Tuesday. Gotcha.
    • 02:20:14Yeah. You were fading out a little bit, Pam, but I think we got the
    • 02:20:16gist of it. So if you haven't already, look into the
    • 02:20:21membership login and get
    • 02:20:24signed up and, and the
    • 02:20:28fees that are out there for your segment. So,
    • 02:20:32like, to see everyone be members for next year and that they've.
    • 02:20:35That date is November 1.
    • Clip 13.5 - No Report
      02:20:40 We have items of no report. Anything else
    • 02:20:44anyone wanted to discuss today?
    • 02:20:55Okay, well, I hope you all have a great week
    • 02:20:59and appreciate your discussion and participation today.
    • 02:21:02Th, and our next meeting is November the 6th.
    • 02:21:06Plan to be in person,
    • Clip 14 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
      02:21:11otherwise, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.
    20241007-wms-ballot-nprr1250
    Oct 06, 2024 - xls - 139 KB
    20241007-wms-combined-ballot
    Oct 06, 2024 - xls - 141.5 KB
    02-agenda-wms-20241007
    Sep 29, 2024 - doc - 142 KB
    03-draft-minutes-wms-20240807
    Sep 29, 2024 - doc - 269 KB
    Meeting-materials-20241007
    Sep 29, 2024 - zip - 5.6 MB
    05-kcollins-market-design-framework
    Oct 02, 2024 - pptx - 251.5 KB
    06-cmwg-update-2024-10-wms
    Sep 29, 2024 - pptx - 467.9 KB
    Meeting-materials-20241007
    Sep 30, 2024 - zip - 9.2 MB
    07-241007-sawg-report-to-wms-v1
    Sep 30, 2024 - pptx - 3.8 MB
    08-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-sept-24-meeting
    Sep 29, 2024 - pptx - 619.6 KB
    Meeting-materials-20241007
    Oct 02, 2024 - zip - 9.4 MB
    Revision-requests-20241007
    Sep 29, 2024 - zip - 4.5 MB