12/12/2024 01:00 PM
Current Time 7:10
Duration 1:51:43
Loaded: 6.46%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:44:33
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
    • default, selected
    Search
    • 00:00:002024.
    • Clip 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
      00:00:03 And then under the other TAC update, we sent several items to
    • 00:00:07TAC for their consideration. They approved four of those items
    • 00:00:11and then NPRR1246 TAC approved, but the board remanded
    • 00:00:15NPRR1246, which is the ESR terminology alignment
    • 00:00:19for the single model era. ERCOT Legal noted that
    • 00:00:22there was some additional language cleanup due to the prior passage of
    • 00:00:27NPRR1188. So some of that same language TOUches NPRR1246.
    • 00:00:32And so ERCOT is going to take a look at that language and we'll
    • 00:00:36get that moving forward.
    • 00:00:39Any questions or thoughts on anything under the TAC update?
    • 00:00:47Okay, Troy, that leads us to
    • 00:00:50you and our project update for this month.
    • Clip 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
      00:00:54Okay, thank you, Diana. Troy Anderson with
    • 00:00:57ERCOT Portfolio Management, if you can hold here on
    • 00:01:00the agenda for a second. Corey,
    • 00:01:03I have a pretty quick update. Nothing out of the ordinary
    • 00:01:07this month, but I just want to remind folks that there are some
    • 00:01:10things that you've requested to me that you'll be seeing first
    • 00:01:14quarter of next year. The FTE information. We got some
    • 00:01:18of that collected. We're analyzing that. As Diana mentioned,
    • 00:01:21we'll be talking about post RTC revision request prioritization,
    • 00:01:25some tweaks you asked for on the IA accuracy reporting
    • 00:01:29that hopefully will turn around a lot quicker in 25 than I delivered
    • 00:01:33in 24. And then also just a
    • 00:01:37point, ERCOT's 2026,
    • 00:01:392027 budget is kind of in progress internally.
    • 00:01:43And so I've made sure that we have funding for the revision
    • 00:01:46request that we know will be after RTC go live.
    • 00:01:50So all of that we'll be talking about in 2025.
    • 00:01:54So on to the next slide. So recent go lives.
    • 00:02:02Get myself caught up. Okay, so in November 1231
    • 00:02:06for Firm Fuel, those tweaks went in on November
    • 00:02:1015th, December 1st we
    • 00:02:13discontinued the VDI relating to NPRR1217. So it's
    • 00:02:17XML only now. And I believe
    • 00:02:20we got the export functionality done for SCR799. I don't
    • 00:02:24know if I actually saw confirmation of that, but it was expected to be
    • 00:02:27done on 12/1. Then the 12/12
    • 00:02:32release, which I guess is today,
    • 00:02:36we got a number of things NPRR1183 actually got brought forward.
    • 00:02:40I was telling you it was going to be next March and now it's here
    • 00:02:44in December. So that's I think moving some reports
    • 00:02:47from Secure MIS secure to
    • 00:02:51ercot public. Also NPRR1184
    • 00:02:55relating to cash collateral goes live and
    • 00:02:58some related PGRRs PGRR108 you'll see there.
    • 00:03:02You're not going to see it on the next slide because I Ran out of
    • 00:03:04space but when I give you the final 2024
    • 00:03:08view next month I'll have PGRR108 on the next slide.
    • 00:03:13Then in January NPRR945 is targeted.
    • 00:03:17I was reporting a December target there but we
    • 00:03:20are needing to move that out by one month but we're confident we can
    • 00:03:24make that December release then there's also a PGRR plan
    • 00:03:28for January next
    • 00:03:31slide. So this is basically
    • 00:03:36the details of what I just discussed down in the Lower right corner NPRR1183
    • 00:03:40in red in December and NPRR945 moving
    • 00:03:44out next
    • 00:03:47slide. See the same activity
    • 00:03:50at NPRR945 and NPRR1183 so nothing
    • 00:03:54else has changed here.
    • 00:03:56RTC 12-05-2025
    • 00:04:04and my next slide. No changes on this one but
    • 00:04:09it is updated for all the expectations
    • 00:04:13with the RTC go live announcement
    • 00:04:21and Slide 7 NPRR1253 we requested
    • 00:04:24another month for the IA so expect
    • 00:04:28to have that for you the January PRS as
    • 00:04:32always these holiday months turning IAs
    • 00:04:35around in about a three to four week cycles
    • 00:04:39difficult within a normal scenario but
    • 00:04:42with holiday months it's even more challenging so we need a little
    • 00:04:46extra time to finish that and
    • 00:04:50last but not least, TWG has been meeting monthly they
    • 00:04:53met on the 21st of November and the next one
    • 00:04:57is the 19th of December with a lot of RTC
    • 00:05:00focus as you might imagine and then other things that are going on as
    • 00:05:04well from a technical perspective I can take
    • 00:05:08any questions Troy,
    • 00:05:16we have a question from Alex. Go ahead. Sorry.
    • 00:05:20Hey, this is Alex. I have a question
    • 00:05:24on. I know it was not a major project 2025
    • 00:05:29focusing on the but the NPRR1198
    • 00:05:33and NPRR258 had a 2025 priority.
    • 00:05:38It seemed like it was fairly minor. Is that something you think still
    • 00:05:41slip into mid-2025 I
    • 00:05:46believe. Let me check here
    • 00:05:51and I'm sorry, did you ask that question last month and did I fail to
    • 00:05:55get back to you? That might be the case. Sorry if that.
    • 00:05:58If that was the case.
    • 00:06:02Let's see.
    • 00:06:09Actually could I maybe bring an answer later in the
    • 00:06:12meeting? I can do some side investigation.
    • 00:06:16That would be fine. Thank you. Thank you,
    • 00:06:19thank you. We have
    • 00:06:23a clear cue. Okay,
    • 00:06:26thank you very much. Thank you Troy, we appreciate that.
    • Clip 5 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman
      00:06:32 Okay, so under section 5 we have a handful
    • Clip 5.4 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP
      00:06:35of impact analyses and prioritizations as
    • 00:06:39Troy mentioned just a minute ago NPRR1253 our
    • 00:06:44filed comments just indicating they need a little bit more time possibly
    • 00:06:48in January and requested PRS
    • 00:06:52to Table NPRR1253 so
    • 00:06:56we could put that on the ballot to
    • 00:07:00table Unless anybody has any questions or concerns. Okay.
    • 00:07:04All right, Corey, let's go ahead and put NPRR1253 on the comma ballot to.
    • 00:07:08I don't know if we need a time certain just to table it and then
      PauseEditCreate clip
    • Clip 5.1 - NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities*
      00:07:10we'll just see what Troy comes up with in January. You got it. Okay.
    • Clip 5.2 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination*
      00:07:15And then NPRR1243, NPRR1250,
    • Clip 5.3 - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements*
      00:07:18 NPRR1252 and
    • Clip 5.5 - NPRR1258, TSP Performance Monitoring Update*
      00:07:22 NPRR1258 all come to us from ERCOT with no cost associated with them. Does anybody have any
    • 00:07:26thoughts or comments or questions on these or would these all be good
    • 00:07:29for the combo ballot? Combo. All right,
    • 00:07:34we are going to get through this.
    • 00:07:40A few things going on today. Okay.
    • Clip 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
      00:07:49All right, sorry. Just checking the queue. All right, so that takes
    • 00:07:53US to section 6 under
    • Clip 6.04 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
      00:07:57 NPRR1202. We had comments filed
    • 00:08:00by Engie expressing their support for this NPRR.
    • 00:08:05I believe this is still being discussed at WMS.
    • 00:08:10WMWG. I don't know if that one's ready
    • 00:08:14just so folks know that that conversation is still going.
    • Clip 6.05 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
      00:08:19 NPRR1214. This was discussed at CMWG
    • 00:08:23earlier this month and was also discussed at WMS.
    • Clip 6.06 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
      00:08:28So it looks like conversations are continuing on that. NPRR1226
    • 00:08:35ERCOT. I've been meeting with
    • 00:08:38Mark Patterson and Floyd on NPRR1226
    • 00:08:43and some optionality that we might be able to possibly roll NPRR1226
    • 00:08:48into another revision request. I know that
    • 00:08:51ERCOT will not have an attorney available to look at some comments
    • 00:08:55before today's meeting. So in the
    • 00:08:58January PRS meeting, we'll take a look at NPRR1226
    • 00:09:02and see if ERCOT's made any movement on
    • 00:09:07those efforts. Mark, are you on? Is there
    • 00:09:11anything that if you are on that that needs to be added that I may
    • 00:09:14have forgotten I
    • 00:09:18am on? Okay, well we appreciate it and
    • 00:09:21we'll just, we'll keep those conversations going and we'll see where we are in
    • 00:09:25January. Yeah, we just needed a little bit more time for legal to review the
    • 00:09:29comments before we follow them. So. Okay.
    • 00:09:32All right, thank you so much.
    • Clip 6.08 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
      00:09:38 Okay, the next item under the table items
    • 00:09:42flagging for awareness is NPRR1234. It looks like PLWG will
    • 00:09:47discuss the related PGRR next week. And there's
    • 00:09:50still conversations at various working groups on NPRR1234.
    • Clip 6.09 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
      00:09:55 NPRR1235. This one is still very much in conversation.
    • 00:09:59Just wanting to flag for awareness that the IMM filed comments and
    • 00:10:03at the end of November they
    • 00:10:06are not available Today they had a different meeting.
    • 00:10:09But just so folks know for those of us that are following NPRR1235
    • 00:10:13that the imm did file some comments. And so.
    • 00:10:18Thank you, Corey. And so some of their previous comments might have
    • 00:10:21some Compliance implications. And so they
    • 00:10:25are going to talk about this out
    • 00:10:30at the, at the January PRS meeting.
    • 00:10:35Bill, My comments
    • 00:10:39were actually on NPRR1202 and NPRR1234.
    • 00:10:42Okay, let's start with NPRR1202.
    • 00:10:47So and I think Angie filed comments
    • 00:10:52recently as well. There is quite a bit of support,
    • 00:10:55stakeholder Support for advancing NPRR1202.
    • 00:10:59ERCOT staff had some concerns and expressed a
    • 00:11:04desire to move 1NPRR234 forward, which we also
    • 00:11:08support. I suggested the idea of potentially moving
    • 00:11:13the fee concept from NPRR1202
    • 00:11:17Concepts. Initial fees for standalone and
    • 00:11:21co located large loads and also a kind of maintenance fee
    • 00:11:25in the interconnection queue. I suggested the idea of moving
    • 00:11:30that concept from NPRR1202 into NPRR1234 and advancing that entire package.
    • 00:11:34ERCOT Legal has
    • 00:11:38this is dog Doug Fawn. I don't want to speak for him but they have
    • 00:11:42convened internally and wanted to follow up and have a discussion with some of
    • 00:11:45the stakeholders that were interested in that concept next week.
    • 00:11:50So I would expect to participate in that discussion with potentially
    • 00:11:53like Bob Whitmire and some of the others involved might be Bob Helton as well
    • 00:11:57since they just filled comments. So I think both NPRR1202
    • 00:12:01and NPRR1234, we're still waiting to see the outcome
    • 00:12:04of that discussion whether we incorporate the fee concept in NPRR1202
    • 00:12:08into NPRR1234. Okay, great. Thank you.
    • 00:12:11Yep. Katie,
    • 00:12:15we see your note in the queue about NPRR1235
    • 00:12:19at the January SAWG. Thank you for that.
    • 00:12:25If I may, I think I was a little confused about what you were saying
    • 00:12:28was coming back to PRS considering that everything's still at
    • 00:12:31SAWG. No, what I
    • 00:12:35meant was that the IMM might want to speak to their comments
    • 00:12:39in the January PRS on NPRR1235
    • 00:12:46but they should bring those to SAWG since that's where the main discussion is,
    • 00:12:50right? Absolutely.
    • Clip 6.11 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
      00:12:59Okay. And then the
    • 00:13:03next item, NPRR1241 WMWG reached
    • 00:13:07consensus this week they will report to WMS on
    • 00:13:11their endorsement with a 123 luminant comments. So we
    • 00:13:14might be able to see that in January NPRR1251.
    • 00:13:29I'm sorry guys.
    • Clip 6.12 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process
      00:13:31 NPRR1251 WMS unanimously endorsed this earlier
    • 00:13:35this month. This one may be ready. Wanted to see what
    • 00:13:39everybody's appetite was. This is coming
    • 00:13:42to us from ERCOT. This is making some improvements to the firm fuel
    • 00:13:46supply service, fuel cost recovery process.
    • 00:13:51This is tabled. We don't have to do anything with it today unless
    • 00:13:55folks think that this would be ready.
    • 00:13:58Did anybody have any thoughts on NPRR1251?
    • 00:14:04Katie, go ahead. Thanks Diana.
    • 00:14:08And wanted to thank Eno for his work on this and for
    • 00:14:11accepting that desktop edit in paragraph five.
    • 00:14:15So with that, I think it's okay to move forward.
    • 00:14:19Okay. If there is
    • 00:14:23no hesitation or no pause, we can add that one to
    • 00:14:26the combo ballot for NPRR1251. Okay. Corey will
    • 00:14:30add that one as well.
    • Clip 6.13 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
      00:14:35 All right, NPRR1255. I wanted to see if Caitlin is
    • 00:14:39on the phone. I know that she had asked to have this
    • 00:14:43item tabled. Caitlin, are you on the phone?
    • 00:14:48Go ahead. Caitlin, can you hear me? Diana, I can
    • 00:14:51hear you. Great. Go ahead. All right, so we had asked for this to
    • 00:14:55be tabled last month, and then December kind
    • 00:14:58of snuck up on us. So I'm hoping that we
    • 00:15:02can keep this tabled again this month. We have
    • 00:15:06been working with ERCOT offline. Those conversations
    • 00:15:10have been productive. And, you know, if they get to the
    • 00:15:13point where I need to file comments, then Jupiter would file comments.
    • 00:15:18In summary on this NPRR, it's the mitigation of ESRs.
    • 00:15:23We are comfortable with the mitigation. We are comfortable with the framework
    • 00:15:26laid out. We are exploring ways
    • 00:15:30to mitigate the situation where
    • 00:15:34you would be committed to ancillaries or something and be
    • 00:15:38preserving your state of charge for that. And then the mitigation
    • 00:15:42would make your offer go down such that you would be deployed when
    • 00:15:45you're not planning on that. And so a couple of the ideas we're exploring
    • 00:15:49with ERCOT are maybe some floor
    • 00:15:53on the mitigation to compensate for
    • 00:15:56your opportunity, cost of
    • 00:15:59having to recharge before your answer, service obligation,
    • 00:16:03or maybe thinking about if there's a state of
    • 00:16:07charge level at which it doesn't make sense to be mitigated.
    • 00:16:11So I envisioned that we'd come back,
    • 00:16:14Jupiter would come back in January with hopefully
    • 00:16:18real comments and then an update.
    • 00:16:23Okay, thank you, Caitlin. Any questions or
    • 00:16:26thoughts for Caitlin? Okay,
    • 00:16:30not seeing any. We don't have to do anything with this because it's already
    • 00:16:33tabled. So what we can do is we can just keep it as is,
    • 00:16:36and then in January we'll see where we are, and then if we need to
    • 00:16:40make any modifications, we can do so. And Corey's nodding his head
    • 00:16:43yes. So it's. Thankfully, we don't put time certains on our tabling to
    • 00:16:46allow that sort of flexibility. So it's great. And Corey's nodding his head and looks
    • 00:16:50really happy, you know, that you're doing something. Okay. For the moment.
    • Clip 6.14 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
      00:16:55Okay, thank you, Caitlin. The next item is NPRR1256.
    • 00:17:00Earlier this month, WMS requested us to continue to table this
    • 00:17:04item so WMWG could look at it this
    • 00:17:07last Week. WMWG did look at this and they will take
    • 00:17:11it up again in January. So those conversations are ongoing.
    • 00:17:15NPRR1257, this was approved
    • 00:17:20or recommended for approval as submitted, I believe. Let's see,
    • 00:17:24ROS was taking a look at this.
    • 00:17:27Christy, did you have a comment on this
    • 00:17:30particular one or one that we were talking about earlier? Nope.
    • 00:17:34NPRR1251. Okay, go ahead.
    • 00:17:38Just for clarification on that combo ballot item,
    • 00:17:42I'm assuming that it's as amended
    • 00:17:46by or as revised by WMS,
    • 00:17:49correct? Yes, we'll add that language. Thank you.
    • 00:17:53Thank you.
    • Clip 6.15 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
      00:17:58 Okay, so back to NPRR1257.
    • 00:18:02Earlier this month, ROS unanimously approved this, so this
    • 00:18:05one may be ready. Wanted to see what anybody had.
    • 00:18:09Any thoughts? This might be another one for combo.
    • 00:18:12Okay, let's add NPRR1257. All right.
    • Clip 6.16 - NPRR1259, Update Section 15 Level Response Language
      00:18:18And then NPRR1259.
    • 00:18:21RMS unanimously endorsed this one as
    • 00:18:25well. Combo. All right,
    • 00:18:29Corey, I'll just note that the similar to NPRR1251 where
    • 00:18:34WMS had a language changed, RMS in their endorsement
    • 00:18:38squeezed in that it's a tax subcommittee
    • 00:18:42approved retail system outage. So the motion on the combo ballot would be to
    • 00:18:46Recommend Approval of NPRR1259 as amended by the December 10
    • 00:18:49RMS comments. Perfect. Thank you,
    • 00:18:53Corey. And then
    • 00:18:56I don't believe there's been any action on either system change request.
    • Clip 6.17 - SCR826, ERCOT.com Enhancements
      00:18:59 SCR826 or
    • Clip 6.18 - SCR827, Grid Conditions Graph Addition for Operating Reserve Demand Curve - ORDC - Level
      00:19:05 SCR827. Okay, so that takes us to
    • Clip 7 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
      00:19:09new language. We have NPRR1260 that comes to
    • 00:19:12us from ERCOT. This is reinstating
    • 00:19:15some language that was inadvertently removed when NPRR863
    • 00:19:22was approved.
    • 00:19:28Mark, I don't. Marco, Corey, I don't know if anybody wants to raise this.
    • 00:19:31This didn't look substantive. It looked more language.
    • 00:19:37Yeah, I'll take a shot at Mark. And correct me if I get you off
    • 00:19:40the rails. If you think back to NPRR863 in all
    • 00:19:44of its glory, it started off by taking RRS
    • 00:19:47and splitting it into PFRS and RRS. Then via
    • 00:19:51comments, PFRS turned into FRS. Then via comments,
    • 00:19:54RRS turned into ECRs. Then via comments,
    • 00:19:58FRS turned back into RRS. So at the end
    • 00:20:01of the line, 863 had created ECRs
    • 00:20:05and attempted to retrain RRS.
    • 00:20:08But the exercise to retain RRS had to
    • 00:20:12be a brand new set of red lines because the existing RRS had
    • 00:20:15been turned into ECRs. So in the 180 plus pages of
    • 00:20:19863, as everyone was trying to add back in what should still
    • 00:20:23be RRS in the new world where ECRs exists,
    • 00:20:26these particular attributes for CLRs were not included
    • 00:20:30in that restored language. So nothing had been removed system wise for
    • 00:20:34what a CLR could or couldn't do. But the protocol language when the dust settled
    • 00:20:38on 863 should have had these red lines and did not.
    • 00:20:44Bill, go ahead. I would recommend we approve
    • 00:20:49this combo
    • 00:20:52ballot or we'll never speak of this again. Yeah,
    • 00:20:56impressive though, layout. Corey, I was just thinking about
    • 00:21:00that like the string with the map and it's like, well, gosh, I don't know
    • 00:21:03how we lost any language and all of that. I know
    • 00:21:06that because I needed to go back and do that digging when folks asked,
    • 00:21:09hey, I'm missing some CLR language. What happened with this? And it's like, well,
    • 00:21:12I'm glad you asked, sit down and stay awhile. And so I had to run
    • 00:21:15them through all of the 863 glory. So apologies that it
    • 00:21:18happened. I'm glad that the cleanup was only what, two sections
    • 00:21:22as opposed to 2,000 pages. So yes,
    • Clip 7.1 - NPRR1260, Corrections for CLR Requirements Inadvertently Removed
      00:21:27okay. So on
    • 00:21:31NPRR1260, unless anybody has any thoughts or concerns,
    • 00:21:35we can add this one to the combo ballot as well. Okay.
    • Clip 7.2 - NPRR1261, Operational Flexibility for CRR Auction Transaction Limits
      00:21:43 NPRR1261 also comes to us from
    • 00:21:46ERCOT. This is removing references to the CRR
    • 00:21:50transaction limits that tag approves and and also
    • 00:21:53the CRR account holder transaction limits.
    • 00:21:57Did anybody from ERCOT want to tee this one up for
    • 00:22:01us?
    • 00:22:06Hi, this is Samantha Finley with ERCOT CRR
    • 00:22:09Market Operations Department.
    • 00:22:12So the purpose of this NPRR
    • 00:22:16is to provide more
    • 00:22:20flexibility to the market operator in
    • 00:22:24determining the overall transaction limits per
    • 00:22:29time of use transaction limits and per account
    • 00:22:32holder transaction limits. The time of use
    • 00:22:35transaction limits incidentally are only applicable
    • 00:22:39to the long term auctions at this time.
    • 00:22:44In using this new
    • 00:22:48per TOU transaction limit hasn't been in
    • 00:22:53place in the past. It's actually a new parameter
    • 00:22:57that came with SCR807 last year.
    • 00:23:02So the idea
    • 00:23:05here is that instead of having
    • 00:23:09a flat 400,000 transaction limit
    • 00:23:12for all auction types having
    • 00:23:18enabling us to have varying transient
    • 00:23:22transaction limits for the different auctions of
    • 00:23:26different capacity percentages.
    • 00:23:29So the what
    • 00:23:33this NPRR is saying is that with
    • 00:23:37every auction notice that is posted
    • 00:23:41before each CRR auction, ERCOT will include
    • 00:23:45a table of these three types of transaction limits
    • 00:23:50in the auction notices.
    • 00:23:52But we'll also be discussing
    • 00:23:56with CMWG before any changes
    • 00:24:00are made to the transaction limits.
    • 00:24:05But this will enable us to have different transaction
    • 00:24:09limits for different auction types. For example,
    • 00:24:14the long term auctions that auction off
    • 00:24:18more capacity of the network model,
    • 00:24:22we can allow more transactions than
    • 00:24:25say the sequence 6 auctions that only are auctioning
    • 00:24:29off 10% of the network capacity.
    • 00:24:33There would be A lower number of transactions available for
    • 00:24:37that auction type.
    • 00:24:43Thank you, Samantha. We have a question from Bill.
    • 00:24:48Hey, Samantha, I'm wondering. I mean, obviously we've been struggling with hitting
    • 00:24:53Transma. Trans CRR transaction volume limitations
    • 00:24:57in the auctions. I assume this is beneficial.
    • 00:25:01I'm just kind of curious how beneficial.
    • 00:25:05Does this solve all of our problems or gets us halfway?
    • 00:25:09Just kind of curious to how much benefit we get in terms of avoiding
    • 00:25:13the adjustment periods and all the other kind of
    • 00:25:17hoops we got to jump through to get the auctions to solve in a reasonable
    • 00:25:20time. Yeah,
    • 00:25:23well, just to give a little bit more
    • 00:25:27information, for example,
    • 00:25:31we have had for several years now the discretion
    • 00:25:35to allow more than 400,000 transactions
    • 00:25:41for auctions when we know that
    • 00:25:46the system can process that number of transactions.
    • 00:25:51And so, like I said,
    • 00:25:54we feel that. Well, we know from our
    • 00:25:59historical performance that the sequence
    • 00:26:021, 2 and 3 auctions that are auctioning
    • 00:26:07off higher capacity percentages,
    • 00:26:10we can allow more than 400,000 transactions.
    • 00:26:15Being able to define transaction
    • 00:26:19limits per auction type is
    • 00:26:23going to give us more flexibility in allowing those additional transactions
    • 00:26:29where we can and limiting them
    • 00:26:35where we know that the CRR
    • 00:26:39system will not solve timely
    • 00:26:43for maintaining our CRR activity,
    • 00:26:48posting results, posting deadlines.
    • 00:27:00Bill, did that answer your question?
    • 00:27:05I was hoping Samantha would be more enthusiastic, but I
    • 00:27:11think this is clearly a positive change anyway, so I would
    • 00:27:14support moving it forward.
    • 00:27:16Okay, thank you. We've like beaten this issue up
    • 00:27:20ad nauseum. It's CMWG and WMS. I don't. I don't
    • 00:27:24see a reason why we need a table and refer. I think we can move
    • 00:27:27it today. Okay.
    • 00:27:31Alex? Yeah. Thanks, Bill, for timing.
    • 00:27:36I was just going to mention some of those issues that
    • 00:27:40were covered potential question and that we had
    • 00:27:43discussed this several times at CMWG and did review this in
    • 00:27:48ER at our last meeting and there was a lot of discussion.
    • 00:27:52The concerns were generally answered.
    • 00:27:55And CMWG has really appreciated some transparency and
    • 00:27:58bringing things to the room and that expectation that stakeholders
    • 00:28:03have heads up there and understanding what's happening at this change
    • 00:28:07and that this is reducing conservative
    • 00:28:10limit across all auctions and allowing. Allowing for
    • 00:28:13more appropriate limits and higher limits for the
    • 00:28:17auction series that fit was good
    • 00:28:21news. So I agree with the Bill that this seems
    • 00:28:25good to go.
    • 00:28:29Okay.
    • 00:28:32All right,
    • 00:28:35what is everybody's thoughts or what are everybody's thoughts on this one?
    • 00:28:39Is this one good for the compa ballot? Ready to move?
    • 00:28:42Okay, Corey,
    • 00:28:46let's add NPRR1261 please, to the combo
    • 00:28:49ballot.
    • 00:28:52Just note what we're talking about. NPRR1261. DC Energy filed a set of comments
    • 00:28:56as well in support of the concepts of NPRR1261
    • 00:29:00and asking encouraging ERCOT to continue the engagement
    • 00:29:04with CMWG, which Samantha referenced. So she kind of stole
    • 00:29:07their thunder. But I don't know if DC Energy wanted to tack on anything about
    • 00:29:11their comments.
    • 00:29:16Is anybody from DC Energy on the line?
    • 00:29:20Not seeing anybody. Okay.
    • 00:29:24But thank you for raising. That's good. I missed that one.
    • 00:29:27Thank you. Oh, yeah. Yes,
    • 00:29:30please, go ahead. Yeah, this is Mark Price
    • 00:29:34from DC Energy and no, not much more to add to that. We appreciate
    • 00:29:38the transparency that ERCOT has been providing to
    • 00:29:42the CMWG and we just wanted to memorialize our
    • 00:29:46request that we see that continued going forward. But yeah,
    • 00:29:50we're supportive.
    • 00:29:54Okay, great. Thank you so much.
    • 00:29:58Thanks, everyone.
    • Clip 7.3 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification
      00:30:04 Okay, so I'm going to pause on NPRR1262.
    • 00:30:08I know Clayton is wanting to
    • 00:30:12talk about this one and he's not available until 2. I don't know if
    • 00:30:16we're going to be here at 2, so we'll just give him a few more.
    • 00:30:24If we're done before too, then we can table it. But if he steers.
    • 00:30:29Okay, so let's put NPRR1262
    • 00:30:33on pause and we'll come back to that one. Corey.
    • 00:30:37Okay, thank you. Melissa, you had a question after
    • 00:30:41we finished NPRR1261? Yeah, thanks, Diana. Sorry to
    • 00:30:45make us go back. I wanted to get clarification. Is NPRR1251
    • 00:30:49on the combo? Yes, it is.
    • 00:30:52Okay, we just had a quick question on it. We thought it might be helpful
    • 00:30:56if we could sort of get a little bit of context as to why the
    • 00:30:59fuel oil index price is necessary.
    • 00:31:15Let me see if somebody is on from ERCOT that could.
    • 00:31:20Ino, are you on the line? Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
    • 00:31:24I can hear you. Great. Please go ahead.
    • 00:31:27I don't know what the question is. Melissa,
    • 00:31:30can you restate your question for Ino? Sure. You know, we were
    • 00:31:34just trying to, you know, understand why we needed the fuel index price.
    • 00:31:40Okay. So under this scenario,
    • 00:31:44you know, we can barely hear you. You were good a
    • 00:31:47second ago. I'm sorry.
    • 00:31:53See how this sound now?
    • 00:31:56Any better? A little better.
    • 00:32:00Go ahead and we'll see if we can keep it and
    • 00:32:04just use your big outside voice.
    • 00:32:10Can you hear me? That's great.
    • 00:32:14Can you hear me? We can hear you, Ino. Go ahead.
    • 00:32:19Can you hear us? So we have volume,
    • 00:32:23but only on one side.
    • 00:32:30Go ahead, Ino, if you can hear us.
    • 00:32:41Can anybody hear me? We can hear you,
    • 00:32:44Ino. Okay, there you go. Go ahead.
    • 00:32:48Okay, so basically this scenario
    • 00:32:52is when Resources utilize their existing
    • 00:32:57fuel inventories to basically
    • 00:33:00fill their tanks, if you will. If to supply the
    • 00:33:03service again immediately without having to purchase
    • 00:33:07additional fuel and the fuel
    • 00:33:11in the tank. The existing fuel in the tank might have been purchased
    • 00:33:15months in advance of the FFS deployment.
    • 00:33:19And we don't know how much they pay. So the maximum we're
    • 00:33:22willing to pay is basically the fuel oil index price
    • 00:33:27for fuel that was purchased before the
    • 00:33:31deployment. Resources can go and purchase fuel in the future
    • 00:33:35after if they are approved to repurchase the fuel, new fuel purchases
    • 00:33:39and then ERCOT will pay whatever the cost of fuel.
    • 00:33:43But if they utilize, if they don't want to replace the fuel, we will pay
    • 00:33:47for the fuel that was consumed through the. Through the FFS deployment
    • 00:33:51based on fab. That's the. That's basically the reason
    • 00:33:54we want to max. We don't want to pay more than the fuel oil price
    • 00:33:58because it's going to be very difficult for us to evaluate or verify
    • 00:34:01how much they pay for the fuel in the past as well.
    • 00:34:05Does that address your question?
    • 00:34:09Yeah, I think it does. So you're
    • 00:34:12saying. So even if their fuel price was lower, we don't think
    • 00:34:16there's a way to verify that. So I guess they
    • 00:34:19would just. There's always going to be an incentive to do the fuel
    • 00:34:24oil export. Right. It could have been lower
    • 00:34:27because maybe, you know, they made several purchases in
    • 00:34:31the past to buy fuel and it could
    • 00:34:34have been higher or lower than the fuel oil price.
    • 00:34:38And I'm talking about the fuel oil price at the time ERCOT made the approval
    • 00:34:42to restock the fuel.
    • 00:34:46Okay, I'm sorry,
    • 00:34:50all, but I'm. Well, okay. I think we're okay with it being on the
    • 00:34:53combo. Done. Thank you. You know. Sure.
    • 00:35:00Don Ross, go ahead. Yeah. You know, to what
    • 00:35:04you're saying, I understand why you would use the fuel index price in that situation.
    • 00:35:08But then I guess if you're using the fuel index price to estimate
    • 00:35:11it, why do you need the new fuel? Why do you need
    • 00:35:16subparagraph A. Because resource
    • 00:35:21entities can decide to replace the fuel
    • 00:35:26by purchasing new inventories, new fuel purchase, main new
    • 00:35:29fuel purchases or. So let
    • 00:35:32me give an example. You have a situation where a unit
    • 00:35:35gets deployed and they burn 100 gallons of fuel oil.
    • 00:35:40They had two choices. They can purchase,
    • 00:35:44replace that fuel with new purchases or
    • 00:35:49basically recover the cost of that fuel based
    • 00:35:52on the purchases they made in the past.
    • 00:35:55Right. But for purchases they made in
    • 00:35:59the past, we don't want to pay more than the fuel oil price.
    • 00:36:06Got it. So for all purchases made in the past, they'd use the fuel
    • 00:36:10oil index price and then for any new purchases going forward,
    • 00:36:13they would use the actual costs.
    • 00:36:18Exactly. Okay, thank you.
    • 00:36:24You're welcome. Katie, we see your text
    • 00:36:28in the chat as well.
    • 00:36:33Any other thoughts on NPRR1251? Just want to make sure
    • 00:36:36everybody's good.
    • 00:36:40Okay, good questions, guys.
    • Clip 7.4 - SCR828, Increase the Number of Resource Certificates Permitted for an Email Domain in RIOO
      00:36:46 Okay, let's go to System Change Request SCR828
    • 00:36:50comes to us from Nextera Energy. Kara, I see you on the
    • 00:36:54line. Did you want to tee this one up for the group, please?
    • 00:36:58Yeah, sure. Good afternoon. Can y'all hear me okay?
    • 00:37:02A little low, but we can hear you. Okay, I'll use my big
    • 00:37:06person voice. This is Kara Bethan with Next
    • 00:37:11item in the stakeholder process. We are requesting that the number of
    • 00:37:15resource certificates permitted for an email domain within the RIO
    • 00:37:18system be encrypted. Currently, in my understanding, there's a
    • 00:37:22limit of 23 certificates available to each email domain
    • 00:37:25associated with a certificate. This creates an incredible challenge
    • 00:37:29for larger marker participants with more than 23 generation
    • 00:37:32assets to submit resource updates timely into RIOO.
    • 00:37:36I've heard from our business management teams these updates can include weatherization
    • 00:37:40limits, plant verification reports,
    • 00:37:43and a host of other data that the
    • 00:37:46RIOO system tracks. So we would like to see if ERCOT
    • 00:37:50staff would be willing to update those reports certificates
    • 00:37:54per email domain to at least 50,
    • 00:37:57but would be would welcome the feedback from ERCOT staff
    • 00:38:00on any limitations to do so.
    • 00:38:06Thank you, Kara.
    • 00:38:12All right,
    • 00:38:16what are everybody's thoughts on the system change
    • 00:38:19request? So something we want to leave
    • 00:38:23here, have it reviewed somewhere else. What are you
    • 00:38:26all thinking?
    • 00:38:31Cara, this is Zach.
    • 00:38:34I actually think we need to increase that to more than 50.
    • 00:38:38I think we need to increase it to about 100 because if we increased it
    • 00:38:41to 50, we would still have the same issue.
    • 00:38:45I think we have about a total of 65 different assets.
    • 00:38:56Yeah, thanks, Zach. I think you kind of highlight the point that, you know,
    • 00:39:00it'd be good to hear from ERCOT if they had any system limitations.
    • 00:39:04We referenced in the SCR. At least 50 that I think in general Remarket
    • 00:39:08participates to update their systems.
    • 00:39:12RIOO in RIOO. It's. It's. We would like to
    • 00:39:15hear from ERCOT. What. What is the limitation on
    • 00:39:18the amount of certificates for an email? I think that's really the pressing
    • 00:39:22issue.
    • 00:39:26Okay, Bill, go ahead. We don't
    • 00:39:29have an IA on this yet, right? No, first time at prs. I mean,
    • 00:39:33I don't see why we would not want to
    • 00:39:37advance this to see what the cost is. That seems to make
    • 00:39:40sense as a market participant need for this. So I would be
    • 00:39:44in favor of approving it today. Coming back with
    • 00:39:47an ia okay. Seeing some head
    • 00:39:51nodding car. Zach, thank you for teeing that
    • 00:39:55up. All right.
    • 00:39:59I can't remember the last one we did this on, but there was, there's,
    • 00:40:02there's been a similar system one before where the request. There you go.
    • 00:40:06Where the request was at least X. And as part of the triage
    • 00:40:09process I'll put on my Troy hat that was part of the discussion with the
    • 00:40:13impacted system owners is what is it?
    • 00:40:16Is it 50, is it 100, is it a thousand? What is it? Before we
    • 00:40:19hit some sort of ceiling that either makes this systematically
    • 00:40:22impossible or makes something run for 70 years or that would
    • 00:40:25cost a million dollars, we will come back with some. What was the other one,
    • 00:40:29Roy?
    • 00:40:32SCR824, which was. What was that
    • 00:40:35was increased file size
    • 00:40:38and quantity limits for RIOO attachment where it was.
    • 00:40:42Come back and tell us what it is. We know there's a limit. We know
    • 00:40:44we don't like that limit. But let's not just ratchet it up to well,
    • 00:40:47we asked for five, I gave you five. It was what can you do logically,
    • 00:40:51200. And it's. So we'll, we'll come back with that information.
    • 00:40:55Thanks. And Corey, the only way to get the IE estimate is
    • 00:40:58to approve it as written.
    • 00:41:01Well, you guys can certainly modify it if you'd like.
    • 00:41:05If you'd like to say at least 500, you could,
    • 00:41:08but then that now has bound Troy and company to not come back with a
    • 00:41:11price tag for anything less than 500. So I think the language as it is
    • 00:41:15is fine. But SCRs are up for revision just
    • 00:41:18like NPRRS are if that's what PRs wanted to recommend approval of.
    • 00:41:22But I think the way this is crafted gives Troy &
    • 00:41:25Co. The power to come back with here's what it would,
    • 00:41:28here's what we can give you. And it would still be okay with
    • 00:41:32that SCR similar to what we did with a 24 where the initial request was
    • 00:41:35at least X and at least Y. And Troy & Co.
    • 00:41:39Came back with we're actually able to give you more than that because that's
    • 00:41:42the next logical ratchet up. Yeah.
    • 00:41:46Since Troy's here, I think the ask is clear.
    • 00:41:49I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to put anything else in there.
    • 00:41:53Go ahead, Troy. Yeah, if you recall, the 824
    • 00:41:57ended up being kind of awkward because I think in the course of testing
    • 00:42:00it, we essentially increase the pipeline Size
    • 00:42:04before it was approved or something. So there's a chance
    • 00:42:08that this one might be similar. It's just, you know,
    • 00:42:10parameters. But we see 50 here. We've heard
    • 00:42:14that more than 50 is probably desirable. So we
    • 00:42:17can kind of consider a couple of tiers and what
    • 00:42:21we put into the IA results. Okay.
    • 00:42:24And even after that IA, there's still opportunity for language modifications
    • 00:42:28if we see something so it's not just committed
    • 00:42:32to what we see on the screen. If in the course of working on that
    • 00:42:34IA, and we're coming back for language and IA,
    • 00:42:38there's still room, Ian Troy,
    • 00:42:43for one of the benchmarks, an entity
    • 00:42:46that has the most certificates for generation resources should be looked
    • 00:42:50at to see if what that would be as a benchmark number
    • 00:42:54and then maybe 10% above that or something like that for. For the companies that
    • 00:42:58do this as a service. Thank you.
    • 00:43:02Thanks, Ann. Cara.
    • 00:43:06Yeah, it's Kara again with Nextera. All of this conversation sounds
    • 00:43:10great. So I'll just keep watching this and if we need to amend anything from
    • 00:43:14the original writing in the SCR, happy to do so. But thanks again,
    • 00:43:18our staff for looking into this. It's greatly appreciated.
    • 00:43:25Okay, so we will add system change
    • 00:43:29request SCR828 to the combo ballot.
    • 00:43:33And I am not seeing Clayton, even though
    • 00:43:37we are a little early. So we can go
    • 00:43:41back to. What is that, 262 and
    • 00:43:45we can table that and wait for January.
    • 00:43:49We can let him tee that up when he's available
    • 00:43:52next. Next month if that sounds good to everybody.
    • 00:43:56Unless anybody do
    • 00:44:01I want. Okay.
    • 00:44:05Okay, let's. Yeah. Oh, yeah, let's do that.
    • 00:44:09That's true. Okay, good point. All right.
    • 00:44:14We could talk about ERS or anything else
    • 00:44:18that he would definitely support.
    • 00:44:22Okay, let's just keep moving then. Section 8.
    • Clip 8 - Notice of Withdrawal - Diana Coleman
      00:44:26 We don't have to do anything with these. I don't believe, but these are just
    • Clip 6.03 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
      00:44:29formal notifications that both NPRR1200
    • Clip 8.1 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
      00:44:33and NPRR1242 are being withdrawn.
    • 00:44:36Corey, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a formal notification.
    • 00:44:39PRS doesn't have to vote on any for those two items today.
    • 00:44:42You've got it. PRs never recommended approval of either of those, so the sponsors
    • 00:44:46are free to withdraw at any time. And this is just your heads up that
    • 00:44:49I didn't accidentally delete them from the sea of tabled items. They were intentionally
    • 00:44:53removed for that. Doing something sneaky. Okay,
    • 00:44:57Melissa, I see you in the queue.
    • 00:45:00Yep. Hey, sorry again. I. After thinking more
    • 00:45:03on NPRR1251, I think I'd like to abstain. So I. I Apologize
    • 00:45:07for making us have a vote, but maybe it gets Clayton into the meeting in
    • 00:45:10time. Okay.
    • 00:45:14All right, so let's bring up NPRR1251 and we'll do an individual vote
    • 00:45:18vote on that one. Give Corey just a
    • 00:45:21few seconds.
    • 00:45:36Motion. Okay, so we're going to need a motion and
    • 00:45:40A second for NPRR1251 to recommend
    • 00:45:43approval of NPRR1251 is amended by the December 5,
    • 00:45:482024 WMS. Comments? Do we have a motion
    • 00:45:52and a second? Not everybody
    • 00:45:55at once.
    • 00:46:00Okay, if we don't have anything, we may.
    • 00:46:18Okay, if we don't, the chair and the vice chair can make motions.
    • 00:46:23Okay, we have a motion by Andy. Do we have a second?
    • 00:46:29Okay. Come on, Bill.
    • 00:46:33Second by Bill. With a star at the end. So we
    • 00:46:37have a motion by Andy and a second by Bill Barnes.
    • 00:46:42Thank you gentlemen for your service. We will start up with
    • 00:46:46consumers. Quick check at the
    • 00:46:50queue to see if anyone's joined us. Believe we've
    • 00:46:53got an Eric Goff. So we'll start with Melissa.
    • 00:46:56Abstain. Sure.
    • 00:47:01Thank you. Move on to our CO ops. Lucas?
    • 00:47:05Yes, thank you.
    • 00:47:10Sure, we've got an Eric Blakey yet.
    • 00:47:16Eric. Let's move on to our generators. Andy?
    • 00:47:19Yes, thank you. Alex?
    • 00:47:22Yes, thank you.
    • 00:47:25Caitlin? Yes,
    • 00:47:28thank you. David?
    • 00:47:32Yes, thank you. Thank you to
    • 00:47:35our IPMS. John?
    • 00:47:39Yes, thanks, sir. On to our IREPs.
    • 00:47:42Bill.
    • 00:47:45Very weak. Yes, Gotcha. Still counts.
    • 00:47:49Thank you, sir. Aaron.
    • 00:47:54Seeing Aaron move
    • 00:48:00on to our IOUs. Martha? Yes, thank you.
    • 00:48:03Jim? Yes, thanks. Gordon. Thank you. On to the munies.
    • 00:48:06Diana? Yes, thank you.
    • 00:48:09Ashley.
    • 00:48:13Ashley and Fei.
    • 00:48:18Yes, thank you. Thank you. Motion carries.
    • 00:48:22One extension. Thank you all.
    • 00:48:25Okay, thanks everybody. Thanks, Corey.
    • Clip 9 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
      00:48:30 Okay, let's go to other business.
    • 00:48:34I know that ERCOT, Amy Lofton and others have been working
    • 00:48:38on an update for, for the ERCOT dashboard roadmap.
    • 00:48:42We had an initial presentation by ERCOT at our September 12th
    • 00:48:47meeting and we. I went back and
    • 00:48:51I looked at the presentation from September
    • 00:48:54compared to what Amy's going to present to us today and
    • 00:48:58also capture some questions that we had for them and just making
    • 00:49:01sure that we are happy
    • 00:49:06with or not happy, but we understand the direction that
    • 00:49:09ERCOT is going on this and making sure that everybody understands what the process
    • 00:49:13is and what ERCOT is looking to do moving forward.
    • 00:49:16So Amy without let you take it away. Thanks,
    • Clip 9.1 - ERCOT Dashboard Roadmap - Amy Lofton
      00:49:19Diana. So we have been working since September
    • 00:49:23to come up with a roadmap first of all
    • 00:49:27for our dashboards just to make sure that we
    • 00:49:30are capturing what has been recommended
    • 00:49:34both from MP and Insight ERCOT and
    • 00:49:39we've met with our risk
    • 00:49:43and strategy team to create this roadmap,
    • 00:49:46and they are the group that does the roadmapping
    • 00:49:50process at ERCOT. So while working with them,
    • 00:49:54this is a process that we came up with and just as a result reminder,
    • 00:49:59the process will be implemented in 2025.
    • 00:50:04So a couple of the things we'll go through is defining
    • 00:50:08that process of introducing new dashboards
    • 00:50:11and any changes to existing dashboards,
    • 00:50:15and then what is going to be the communications around that.
    • 00:50:20So this should look very familiar. This is what I brought to
    • 00:50:23should be similar to what you're used to
    • 00:50:27should be similar to what you're used to
    • 00:50:31with the revision request, such as suggesting
    • 00:50:36the request and I'll walk through in just
    • 00:50:39a moment how that is submitted to
    • 00:50:42ERCOT and then in
    • 00:50:47that request. And we don't have that
    • 00:50:51set up yet, but we will be working on that to implement it next
    • 00:50:54year. From that submission,
    • 00:50:58whether it comes from a group or from
    • 00:51:02an individual, it will be set into a
    • 00:51:06backlog to be considered. So ERCOT will consider
    • 00:51:09it and I'll go over a couple of those considerations that we
    • 00:51:14run through in that process. So, again,
    • 00:51:18once it's considered, whether it's rejected or
    • 00:51:22if it's approved, we can go through the impact
    • 00:51:26analysis portion, which is part of our project
    • 00:51:29procedure at ERCOT, and then finally,
    • 00:51:33we will treat it as a
    • 00:51:37project, whether it's an actual project funded
    • 00:51:41by the PMO or
    • 00:51:45whether it's what we call O&M ERCOT.
    • 00:51:49So once we realize what the costs are and then prioritize
    • 00:51:54it with other ongoing things
    • 00:51:58that are happening at ERCOT, then we can move
    • 00:52:02over to the schedules, the implementation
    • 00:52:06of the dashboard or display changes.
    • 00:52:11So some of the things that we
    • 00:52:15do, we do consider
    • 00:52:18as part of this is listed here.
    • 00:52:22There will be a form, as I said, we're thinking
    • 00:52:25it will be with our ServiceNow tool, but I don't want to
    • 00:52:28say that is 100% accurate right now.
    • 00:52:33But since there is already a public portal, this would
    • 00:52:36be a good fit with how anyone can
    • 00:52:40come in here and create those requests.
    • 00:52:45So some of the things we have to consider when we're looking at
    • 00:52:50changes to dashboards and some of the other systems
    • 00:52:54is, does it provide a broad value to
    • 00:52:58ERCOT stakeholders? And after that,
    • 00:53:02is it. What is the level of effort?
    • 00:53:06And in that level of effort,
    • 00:53:09we have to consider things like, does that data already exist
    • 00:53:13to build out that dashboard, or is it something that we're going to have to
    • 00:53:17go back and build in
    • 00:53:21the queries and try to find that data
    • 00:53:25some other way to. To make it available.
    • 00:53:30And then of course it has to be public data that we're
    • 00:53:34talking about. So if there's any confidential or secure
    • 00:53:38data, then that right there would not
    • 00:53:43be part of the requirements of making it public. On ERCOT.com
    • 00:53:49the other thing we would need to consider is, is this
    • 00:53:52a duplicate effort or can you find
    • 00:53:56that information in another form? One of the
    • 00:53:59examples would be, if there's already a report that has
    • 00:54:04this data in it, would that
    • 00:54:08suffice for what the request is being asked?
    • 00:54:14The other thing is, is this a long term process? So is this something
    • 00:54:18that this time next year, if we build out this
    • 00:54:22dashboard, is it going to still be available?
    • 00:54:26If it's something that's going to be going away, we obviously don't want
    • 00:54:29to put all this effort into a project
    • 00:54:33that would not be in effect in
    • 00:54:37the future. And then the last thing here as an example,
    • 00:54:41and this is not a complete list, but just
    • 00:54:44another example is again, is this something
    • 00:54:48that is available in some other kind of format?
    • 00:54:53So I'll pause there and see if we have any questions
    • 00:54:57before I go on. We have
    • 00:55:00a cleric. Okay.
    • 00:55:04So part of the impact analysis and
    • 00:55:07the project review, prioritization as
    • 00:55:12part of the ERCOT process, we do have
    • 00:55:16to look at things like the cost, is there existing hardware
    • 00:55:20and software that we have that would support this,
    • 00:55:23or is this something that's going to have to be purchased and
    • 00:55:27then hours per department?
    • 00:55:30So we're constantly working on multiple
    • 00:55:34projects at any given day
    • 00:55:38and we have to make sure that those departments have
    • 00:55:41the bandwidth to help us, whether it's getting the
    • 00:55:44data or designing that data
    • 00:55:48into a dashboard or actually
    • 00:55:52putting it out onto the website? And then
    • 00:55:56another review is the budget.
    • 00:55:59So does ERCOT have the funding to put this
    • 00:56:03into the queue, to build it out and
    • 00:56:07then the priority of it, and then also
    • 00:56:13are other projects that are ongoing, are they
    • 00:56:16going to be kind of higher priority than
    • 00:56:20we have the schedule
    • 00:56:24status? So here and again
    • 00:56:28I was asked to come back with a solution that involved communication.
    • 00:56:32And we do want to be transparent and let everyone know
    • 00:56:36where their requests are in that queue.
    • 00:56:39And we will build out that public
    • 00:56:44display to show everyone what has been asked and
    • 00:56:50also what the decisions were and why those
    • 00:56:54decisions were made. So it's not something that's going to be
    • 00:56:57going into this form and then kind of lost to everyone.
    • 00:57:01You will be have the ability to go in
    • 00:57:05and look at that. And that does include
    • 00:57:09all of the requests that we have in the backlog.
    • 00:57:13And then the last thing Here is of course, in the backlog.
    • 00:57:17We do have to prioritize and you will
    • 00:57:21be able to see again if that
    • 00:57:24suggestion, what you're suggesting has already been suggested in here.
    • 00:57:28We'll just combine those two, ask together
    • 00:57:32and that will go into that consideration.
    • 00:57:36Amy? Yes. We have one question. Do you want to
    • 00:57:40take that now or do you want to. Because you're almost done. I can do
    • 00:57:43it now. Yes, Bill, go ahead.
    • 00:57:50This is for request to change the. The dashboards
    • 00:57:53that are viewable on the ERCOT website.
    • 00:57:56Correct. This seems to imply that there could
    • 00:58:00potentially be a lot of changes to the dashboards and I hope
    • 00:58:03that's not the case. I think there could be some suggestions to create
    • 00:58:07new ones. But to have such a formal
    • 00:58:10process that would allow for
    • 00:58:14constant changing of what we see is little
    • 00:58:18concerning. And I'm just looking at your. The process.
    • 00:58:24Do these ever come back to like this group to take
    • 00:58:28a look at and talk about whether that makes sense or not?
    • 00:58:31It looks like it's all within kind of closed doors at ERCOT and whether
    • 00:58:34you determined to do it or not.
    • 00:58:37So there were a couple of questions in there. So I
    • 00:58:41think the main thing there is it
    • 00:58:44will be transparent for everyone to see. The second
    • 00:58:48is we will be working
    • 00:58:51with the technology working group,
    • 00:58:55not particularly with PRs. Not that's
    • 00:58:59not to say we can't come back and report certain things to this
    • 00:59:03group, but we do plan to work with the technology
    • 00:59:06working group because that kind of goes more in
    • 00:59:10line with this. And then your other question,
    • 00:59:16I was asked to create this process because
    • 00:59:19there was some feedback and
    • 00:59:23it was going into things like the SCR is the system request,
    • 00:59:27change request, and also
    • 00:59:30into the NPRR process. And since these are not required
    • 00:59:35postings, that's why we created this
    • 00:59:39process. Those are
    • 00:59:43voted on by stakeholders, though. It's not clear that this is correct
    • 00:59:47and we don't anticipate it to be voted
    • 00:59:51on. We just want to create that process.
    • 00:59:55If you have feedback, if you have suggestions for more
    • 00:59:59dashboards or changes to existing ones, there's a forum
    • 01:00:03for you to do that. Okay, so I'm just using
    • 01:00:06bad example. Ian submits a request
    • 01:00:10to create a dashboard to display NRG's data
    • 01:00:13for our power plants. I would not like that
    • 01:00:18and Ian would like that. How would we resolve that
    • 01:00:23in this process you're proposing? Well, it goes back
    • 01:00:27to this here and one of those is,
    • 01:00:30does it provide a broad value to ERCOT
    • 01:00:34stakeholders? And I would say no, because that was, that's very
    • 01:00:38segregated. But who Makes that call. Is that just ERCOT's discretion?
    • 01:00:41It's part of the ERCOT process, yes. So if we go back
    • 01:00:45over here to this consideration and
    • 01:00:49looking at the impact of it and
    • 01:00:53what all data is in there, well, then I'll submit
    • 01:00:56one to Morgan Stanley, expose their trades, then we can go
    • 01:01:00back and forth. Okay.
    • 01:01:03I'm a little nervous about how much stakeholder involvement
    • 01:01:07is in this process, but okay.
    • 01:01:11Thanks, Martha.
    • 01:01:15Thank you for the update, Amy. I guess I was just wondering what the
    • 01:01:19two SCR826 and SCR827 that have been table for
    • 01:01:22some time, are you expecting that ERCOT
    • 01:01:26will suggest that those requests need to be
    • 01:01:30pursued through this process rather than through an SCR?
    • 01:01:33Correct, yes. Okay. Because the SCR is that
    • 01:01:37process, we don't want this data
    • 01:01:42flowing through because it's not required to be
    • 01:01:46posted. Okay, thank you,
    • 01:01:50Caitlin.
    • 01:01:53Thanks. Can you can hear me still? You sound
    • 01:01:57great. So,
    • 01:02:00following on, Bill thought I think I
    • 01:02:03would prefer this to be a
    • 01:02:07revision request so that we could have stakeholder input. But I think what I'm
    • 01:02:11hearing being said that the logic is
    • 01:02:14because. Because none of these dashboard displays are
    • 01:02:18required, they're not in protocols
    • 01:02:23or anything, so thus we can't put an
    • 01:02:26approval process for them into protocol.
    • 01:02:31Yes, that is correct. Yes. Okay. And so
    • 01:02:36ERCOT's position is in order for us to
    • 01:02:40have a stakeholder process to make changes to the display,
    • 01:02:44we'd first have to put, you know, every display
    • 01:02:48and dashboard we want required into the protocol.
    • 01:02:55Yes, that is correct as well. Okay. But that,
    • 01:02:58that could be done.
    • 01:03:08It's something that we don't want done because
    • 01:03:14just historically these have been
    • 01:03:20as it's not required
    • 01:03:23information that we put out there. And we do have a lot
    • 01:03:26of reports that support several of these
    • 01:03:30dashboards, but that's just in another format.
    • 01:03:36Okay. I think it's worth thinking about if there's
    • 01:03:39a way for us to require that
    • 01:03:43changes go through a stakeholder process, even somehow
    • 01:03:46without spelling everything required out. It seems to me
    • 01:03:50like there should be a way to do that. I think there was
    • 01:03:54previously, so I think that's worth thinking about.
    • 01:03:59There hasn't been for the dashboards and displays.
    • 01:04:04Okay.
    • 01:04:07Okay. I think, I just think it's worth
    • 01:04:10thinking about if there's a way to put that into a stakeholder process.
    • 01:04:15That's the end of my comments, Diana. Thank you, Caitlin.
    • 01:04:19Ian, thank you. Few things.
    • 01:04:22So historically, changes to the website were done through these
    • 01:04:25processes. It wasn't until uri, when ERCOT
    • 01:04:29revamped the website, and then decided that the
    • 01:04:32ERCOT website belonged to ERCOT, that stakeholders were
    • 01:04:36no longer allowed to make changes through revision requests.
    • 01:04:41What I would recommend here to satisfy
    • 01:04:44Bill's concerns is entering in a new three
    • 01:04:48and having three become four, et cetera, to where stakeholders can
    • 01:04:52make comments of if they
    • 01:04:56support or if they have concerns with such a thing,
    • 01:05:00which would then keep it out of the stakeholder
    • 01:05:03approval process, which is really what ERCOT's desire is.
    • 01:05:07But allow stakeholders to give feedback and
    • 01:05:10to say, hey, my trade information is
    • 01:05:14mine, you shouldn't be doing it, or hey, that's a really good idea,
    • 01:05:17ERCOT, we also support this. So I
    • 01:05:20think that's the way to get the stakeholder feedback you're looking for,
    • 01:05:24yet still keep it entirely ERCOT's purview and ERCOT's
    • 01:05:27decision. So, Ian, are you saying to
    • 01:05:31come back to certain groups for that or.
    • 01:05:34It doesn't have to be groups. Doesn't have to. It could just be a posting,
    • 01:05:37it could be whatever ERCOT wishes it to be.
    • 01:05:40Groups, I think would give your legal team
    • 01:05:44a little pause because then your bring it back into stakeholder purview.
    • 01:05:48I would think it'd be more a posting or an email
    • 01:05:51exploder list that it goes out on and with a
    • 01:05:54deadline to say you must provide comments by such and such state
    • 01:05:58like rmrs do. All right,
    • 01:06:01and just a slight correction there,
    • 01:06:06the ERCOT website was expanded after
    • 01:06:10uri. I wouldn't say that we took it away from. From the stakeholders,
    • 01:06:13we just had to broaden our audience.
    • 01:06:17Correct. I'm sorry, I meant that changes were no longer in the purview
    • 01:06:21of stakeholders to the website.
    • 01:06:28Phil, similar suggestion
    • 01:06:33that Ian just made and I
    • 01:06:36understand the desire to not have this turn into like a formal NPRR
    • 01:06:41SCR process, but I think you could definitely tweak this to
    • 01:06:44address the concerns, which would be kind of like Ian said, like in
    • 01:06:48number three, before ERCOT makes a final determination
    • 01:06:52on yes, this is good or not, is maybe bring
    • 01:06:56to PRS a list of all the requests in ERCOT's
    • 01:07:00recommendation. ERCOT thinks this is good because of this and
    • 01:07:04we plan to move forward unless there's objections. You know,
    • 01:07:08not to create more work for prs, but I really don't think there's going to
    • 01:07:11be a lot of these. I hope not.
    • 01:07:15And that would give stakeholders an opportunity to one understand.
    • 01:07:18Maybe you could lay out this is what the dashboard request
    • 01:07:22is asking for. Here's the information it impacts ERCOT
    • 01:07:26is recommending we do it because it's not time consuming on
    • 01:07:29resources and it provides more transparency for the particular thing
    • 01:07:35then that way we have a chance to at least participate before you
    • 01:07:38move forward for something that could inadvertently harm a participant or
    • 01:07:42a segment. That's a thought. Thanks.
    • 01:07:47Thanks, Phil. Roy. True.
    • 01:07:52Yeah, I support what Bill
    • 01:07:55was just saying. I think between number
    • 01:07:59two and number three, maybe there should be an opportunity for
    • 01:08:04market participants to provide some written
    • 01:08:09comments regarding proposals for
    • 01:08:13the dashboard display.
    • 01:08:18Like I said, head of number three, so that you know,
    • 01:08:21if you go past three before you start adding things in, the decision's
    • 01:08:25already been made. So. Thank you.
    • 01:08:29Thank you, Mark Smith.
    • 01:08:32Yeah, I, Bill said
    • 01:08:36pretty much what I the gist of what I was going to say and so
    • 01:08:40I would just express my total agreement
    • 01:08:44with him on in terms of the need for stakeholders at some point to
    • 01:08:47be able to have more of a voice
    • 01:08:52on these issues.
    • 01:08:56Okay, thank you, Mark.
    • 01:08:59So we have a clear queue and I
    • 01:09:03have a couple of questions myself. So on
    • 01:09:06this process flow, how does the impact
    • 01:09:10analysis review work if it doesn't go through the stakeholder process?
    • 01:09:14Is that a review, an approval of dollars,
    • 01:09:19aside from market participant input
    • 01:09:24and feedback? Correct. It's part of the internal
    • 01:09:28process that ERCOT where we look at
    • 01:09:32different activities, whether it be a
    • 01:09:35funded project or what we call om,
    • 01:09:39which is daily operational and maintenance of
    • 01:09:42systems. And as part
    • 01:09:46of that process, that's where it comes from. It's not
    • 01:09:50something that we come back to any of the stakeholders and
    • 01:09:54evaluate with them. It's more of an executive level.
    • 01:09:58So we have processes where we go to
    • 01:10:03a technical foundation and talk to the
    • 01:10:06IT leadership and then we eventually go
    • 01:10:10to the portfolio review where the
    • 01:10:14executives vote on, yes, we can provide
    • 01:10:17dollars for this or we have to table
    • 01:10:21it or you know, it's lower priority so we can get to it in two
    • 01:10:25or three years. Okay,
    • 01:10:27Troy, I can just add to what Amy's saying.
    • 01:10:31For any proposed project, NPRR or anything,
    • 01:10:35we do the same type of impact analysis process.
    • 01:10:38So to the degree something's internal,
    • 01:10:41it has an IA just like the IAs you see here.
    • 01:10:45Okay,
    • 01:10:49Roy, go ahead.
    • 01:10:52Yeah, I was just going to ask. It sounds like there
    • 01:10:57should be somewhere on the ERCOT website where you're going to be
    • 01:11:01posting how this is going to work and
    • 01:11:04the documents that you need to utilize to put in a
    • 01:11:08request. So are you planning to
    • 01:11:12set aside some place to put all of these,
    • 01:11:15whether they get approved or rejected and you
    • 01:11:18know, some sort of database that people can refer
    • 01:11:22to? Is that what you're expecting to do?
    • 01:11:25Yes. Correct. So on slide four,
    • 01:11:29what I was referring to here is we will find
    • 01:11:33a place, whether it's on ERCOT.com or one of
    • 01:11:37our portals that work off of ServiceNow that
    • 01:11:41will be available. And we can also link from ERCOT.com
    • 01:11:45to wherever this collection
    • 01:11:49of the feedback is.
    • 01:11:55Okay, so you're going to include all the instructions and everything
    • 01:11:59about, you know, how to do this and
    • 01:12:03what the process is, then that's all going to be spelled
    • 01:12:06out somewhere on. Yes, wherever we access it.
    • 01:12:10Okay. Yes. Thank you. Hey,
    • 01:12:14thanks, Amy. Andy here definitely agree with what
    • 01:12:18Bill said in terms of more call it market
    • 01:12:22transparency or just a procedurally. Right. Like having a public forum to
    • 01:12:25have the discussions and building on what Roy just
    • 01:12:29said, that's going to save ERCOT some time too, because if
    • 01:12:33it's decided that we reject an idea or a request
    • 01:12:36for a dashboard change, what you don't want to have is multiple redundant requests
    • 01:12:41having that forum where we can at least see, hey, this request was already made,
    • 01:12:45here's why it was rejected. Stakeholders talked about it. This isn't something
    • 01:12:49we need. You know, these are the kind of things we're thinking about trying
    • 01:12:52to marry or get
    • 01:12:56the procedure that you laid out in
    • 01:13:00having stakeholder feedback involved.
    • 01:13:03And then my second question or point I wanted to make was
    • 01:13:07on the IA approval process,
    • 01:13:11is there a threshold limitation on the
    • 01:13:15dashboard process that's being proposed? For example, if something was a million
    • 01:13:18dollars, if it was within the budget, ERCOT is making that
    • 01:13:22decision, or like, what's the process look
    • 01:13:26like for approval homes? I can,
    • 01:13:29I can take that one, Amy, To a
    • 01:13:33degree, it's based on how we perceive the priority
    • 01:13:37of the item to be. So if there's a million dollar
    • 01:13:41dashboard change that we think is more
    • 01:13:45important than 12 other things on
    • 01:13:48our list, then we'll find a way to fund it.
    • 01:13:52Hopefully most of these things aren't huge dollar things and so they
    • 01:13:56kind of fit into the budget without you creating too much of a splash.
    • 01:14:01Yeah, appreciate the insight, Troy, with what
    • 01:14:05Bill and Roy were saying on that if you go back to the go up
    • 01:14:08one slide, Amy, that's where
    • 01:14:12adding not only adding stakeholder feedback in number three,
    • 01:14:15but also number four would be beneficial. So some of that triaging
    • 01:14:20and weighing the benefits relative to the budget and what's
    • 01:14:23available could be beneficial for ERCOT to hear from stakeholders.
    • 01:14:31And I guess I'll just add, I know that we're
    • 01:14:35trying to implement a completely separate process for
    • 01:14:39the dashboards and the displays, but the thing that I keep hearing
    • 01:14:43and that I understand. And support is that we need stakeholder
    • 01:14:47transparency. It would be helpful to know,
    • 01:14:50you know, if Constellation requested something,
    • 01:14:54what that was doing. And it seems like you have a workaround
    • 01:14:58for that. But as far as,
    • 01:15:01you know, having stakeholder input, what if it's
    • 01:15:05rejected? Making sure that the IA is reviewed
    • 01:15:09or it's prioritized. And all
    • 01:15:13of these things that are on this slide
    • 01:15:17are things that we do with other changes. And it just
    • 01:15:21seems like, like we're duplicating efforts because it's a dashboard and
    • 01:15:24because it's a display. And so we're trying to make workaround
    • 01:15:28processes for a system that is very well in place
    • 01:15:32and works very efficiently. Now we have
    • 01:15:36a request. We have a display.
    • 01:15:39This is what we're wanting. We want stakeholder participation.
    • 01:15:43This will go through the process. Okay, this is going to have an ia.
    • 01:15:46What does this look like? Is it approved? Is it rejected?
    • 01:15:50Here's where it is. We can, you know, I'm just wondering
    • 01:15:53if there's a way that we can have the dashboard, but to create
    • 01:15:57a second parallel process seems to be making it very muddy,
    • 01:16:02at least in my mind, of why we're trying to
    • 01:16:05have the same level of information on
    • 01:16:09all the other changes that we do. But for dashboards and,
    • 01:16:12and displays, we're going to do something bifurcated and different.
    • 01:16:15And that's. That's my hiccup. And I
    • 01:16:20support what Caitlin said as far as maybe this needs to be an NPRR,
    • 01:16:25but I just feel like I'm wondering if we
    • 01:16:28need to reinvent the wheel for something that already works very efficiently.
    • 01:16:32And so I've been trying to look at this since September,
    • 01:16:36going back, listening to that conversation and figuring out where we are.
    • 01:16:40And just the consistent theme is transparency
    • 01:16:45and process. And we already have that. And I'm just very
    • 01:16:49stumped as to why for dashboards and displays,
    • 01:16:52this process needs an entirely different thing.
    • 01:16:55And so I just wanted to say that
    • 01:16:59I know that we're working hard on this, but.
    • 01:17:04So. Yeah, Caitlin.
    • 01:17:10Yeah, I just wanted to agree with you, Diana.
    • 01:17:14You know, I understand that we don't want to avoid,
    • 01:17:19or we would like to avoid the revision request process because
    • 01:17:22it's cumbersome, but it seems a little counterintuitive
    • 01:17:26to invent a whole new process to avoid
    • 01:17:29something that is cumbersome. And I, in comments,
    • 01:17:33I keep hearing if it gets rejected,
    • 01:17:36if we reject it over and over. And I see that in this process flow,
    • 01:17:40and I see ERCOT considerations,
    • 01:17:43but it's not we rejecting. And I think we don't have
    • 01:17:47clarity around that process. Right. If ERCOT
    • 01:17:50rejects something that we think is very valuable, doesn't seem like there would be an
    • 01:17:54appeal process. I don't know what ERCOT's obligations
    • 01:17:58to us are. Right. If, if they reject something, do they
    • 01:18:02have to give us notice? Do they have to tell us
    • 01:18:05why? And so to me, it would be easier to use
    • 01:18:09the revision request process in place.
    • 01:18:15I just need to reinstate that.
    • 01:18:19The dashboards, the data that goes into those,
    • 01:18:22are not required postings, they are courtesy
    • 01:18:27postings. And so to take this and put it into the protocol
    • 01:18:32revision request, it puts it into another category.
    • 01:18:36So anytime we have any changes, we have
    • 01:18:39to follow that process.
    • 01:18:43Is that a difficult process to change? I mean, if it's not,
    • 01:18:46should it be? I mean, is that a conversation that we should have? I mean,
    • 01:18:49if we're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, I mean,
    • 01:18:53maybe that's. Maybe we're not looking at the right question.
    • 01:18:59Well, it would be a legal decision discussion,
    • 01:19:03I think.
    • 01:19:08Okay, we have a clear queue. Does anybody else have any thoughts or
    • 01:19:12questions for Amy or Cobb?
    • 01:19:20No, but thank you so much for bringing this up. I think this is something
    • 01:19:23we definitely. It's important to all of us and we certainly want to get it
    • 01:19:26right. So we appreciate you coming to, you know, queue this
    • 01:19:30up for us. You're welcome. Thank you. Roy, did you have a question
    • 01:19:33before she leaves? Yeah, I just.
    • 01:19:36I see that it says implemented in 2025.
    • 01:19:40Do we have any kind of timeline on when we
    • 01:19:43might see something on this other
    • 01:19:47than. I do. Not that, but I will definitely
    • 01:19:52keep Diana in the loop as to where we are on the process.
    • 01:19:56Great, thank you. Thank you again, Amy.
    • 01:20:04Mark Smith.
    • 01:20:07Yeah. Will there be an opportunity to,
    • 01:20:11for stakeholder input on further input on
    • 01:20:14this proposal that ERCOT
    • 01:20:18staff comes out with? I mean, it seems like there
    • 01:20:21ought to be some stakeholder approval process for the new
    • 01:20:25process, at least.
    • 01:20:32Hold on just a second, Mark. We're going to.
    • 01:20:38We're going to get Amy back up to the mic. Hold on one minute.
    • 01:20:47So, again, we want to
    • 01:20:50be transparent. It is still in
    • 01:20:56discussions and we will definitely keep
    • 01:20:59everyone informed in that process.
    • 01:21:03Did I answer your question,
    • 01:21:13Mark? Did that answer your question?
    • 01:21:17Yeah, I just wanted to be sure that there would be a
    • 01:21:20vehicle for appealing the process if we
    • 01:21:24didn't agree with it when you proposed it, finally.
    • 01:21:30Okay, thank you.
    • 01:21:33Wouldn't be. You're just, you're just going to advise us of what your decision
    • 01:21:37is or will we be able to Take this up
    • 01:21:42through TAC and the board.
    • 01:21:46We will definitely come back and discuss it before it's implemented.
    • 01:21:49Yes. Okay, thank you.
    • 01:21:56Okay guys, thank you so much. That was good conversation.
    • 01:22:03Okay, Corey, I think we
    • 01:22:08are going to go back.
    • 01:22:13Mr. Career is available.
    • 01:22:17Clayton, in your absence, we were talking about all the ways that you love ers
    • 01:22:21and the expansion of the budget.
    • 01:22:26Just kidding. Go ahead and NPRR1260.
    • Clip 7.3 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification
      01:22:31 Go ahead and tee up NPRR1262 for us and we'll see
    • 01:22:35if we have any questions for you.
    • 01:22:38Okay. Yeah. This is an extraordinarily simple NPRR
    • 01:22:43deliberately. So what it does,
    • 01:22:46it doesn't change anything in the, the protocols.
    • 01:22:49What it does is helps folks that
    • 01:22:53may not be in the ERCOT process understand that
    • 01:22:57in ERCOT we have an opt out provision for
    • 01:23:01and specifically CLRs, but really it's anybody that is
    • 01:23:05assigned to an ancillary service in that the QSC can elect
    • 01:23:09to replace that ancillary service resource with another
    • 01:23:13qualified resource. So this is,
    • 01:23:16there's really no change to the system here. What is, or no change
    • 01:23:20to the protocols or the,
    • 01:23:23or anything that is going on here. It is simply adding the
    • 01:23:26term opt out, which is specific to
    • 01:23:31the settlement or the, I'm sorry, the ruling by the
    • 01:23:35Patent Office in a case that we had with Lancium
    • 01:23:38on their claim that they
    • 01:23:42own CLR provision by, among other things,
    • 01:23:46Bitcoin mining. So what this is designed to
    • 01:23:50do is to help any court or anybody that is looking at
    • 01:23:54this understand, understand that yes, an opt out provision
    • 01:23:57is available for ancillary services in ERCOT and
    • 01:24:00therefore the Lancian patents do not apply.
    • 01:24:08So that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
    • 01:24:12Okay, thank you, Clayton.
    • 01:24:16Any questions?
    • 01:24:20Evan? Everybody, this is
    • 01:24:23Evan Neal with Lancium. I just want to respond to Clayton's comments here.
    • 01:24:27And we did also file comments ourselves on the NPRRs
    • 01:24:32additional comments that he filed as a follow up to the original NPRR.
    • 01:24:36I mean, just generally speaking, you know, we've been working with ERCOT for a while
    • 01:24:40kind of behind closed doors to resolve this issue that Clayton is bringing up.
    • 01:24:43Resolving the topic just kind of in general, we don't
    • 01:24:47really agree with the assertions that they're making
    • 01:24:50in their comments. But because this could be subject to
    • 01:24:54future litigation in federal courts, we don't really want to comment here and we don't
    • 01:24:57really feel that PRS or ERCOT stakeholder process is really
    • 01:25:00the appropriate, appropriate place for hashing this out.
    • 01:25:04So to that end, you know, ultimately we would,
    • 01:25:08we would like for this to be rejected but we would also
    • 01:25:12support a motion to table this for a few months so we can continue our
    • 01:25:14ongoing negotiations to sort this out behind closed doors.
    • 01:25:19Thank you, Evan. Matt,
    • 01:25:23good afternoon. This is Matt, our regulatory council with ERCOT.
    • 01:25:28We did file comments asking for PRS to consider tabling
    • 01:25:32this NPRR.
    • 01:25:36I don't have a position, I don't have ERCOT's position on the substance
    • 01:25:40of this NPRR at this time. I think we would potentially be
    • 01:25:43interested in tabling it and coming back to that in the first quarter.
    • 01:25:48I do think it is important for transparency to all
    • 01:25:51to let y'all know that
    • 01:25:55ERCOT has had discussions with Lancium.
    • 01:25:59As Evan was just mentioning,
    • 01:26:02Lancium did bring a patent
    • 01:26:05licensing proposal to ERCOT for
    • 01:26:08consideration. Just to clarify,
    • 01:26:11you know, I wouldn't characterize that as working with or negotiating.
    • 01:26:15I think we're really just trying to understand what that proposal is.
    • 01:26:18And if, if that were ever to be
    • 01:26:22done, I think it would be done in a transparent fashion.
    • 01:26:26But we've also had discussions with Cholla and the Blockchain
    • 01:26:30Council. So really it's a novel
    • 01:26:34issue and ERCOT is just trying to make sure that we kind of
    • 01:26:38understand where everyone's coming from on that.
    • 01:26:42So we would for that reason just ask
    • 01:26:46y'all to consider tabling it. Thank you, Matt.
    • 01:26:50Clayton.
    • 01:26:55Yeah, so I'm a little confused as to why
    • 01:26:58anybody would want this rejected. There is no change to the
    • 01:27:02protocols. It simply makes it clear that that is the way you opt out.
    • 01:27:06So the comments that we're trying to litigate this in ERCOT,
    • 01:27:09that is actually far from the truth. We're trying to just make
    • 01:27:13it clear so that if any litigation did arise, there would be a
    • 01:27:16clear path for anybody to understand that
    • 01:27:20there is an opt out provision in ERCOT and this is the way you do
    • 01:27:23it. Now, if there's some other interpretation that Lancium has
    • 01:27:27on the way that ruling came out, then that's certainly fine
    • 01:27:30and they can try to impose that. But as far as the validity of this
    • 01:27:34NPRR, there is no change. So it's just
    • 01:27:38a clarification.
    • 01:27:45Thank you, Clayton. Bill,
    • 01:27:49you have a few questions on this and
    • 01:27:53kind of admittedly from the top, sympathetic to Chola's
    • 01:27:58position on this because we have customers that are basically
    • 01:28:02being prevented from participating as CLRs, which is a pretty big concern
    • 01:28:06for us. So,
    • 01:28:10and I do, I appreciate the comments followed by both Lansium
    • 01:28:14and Cholla on this and ERCOT. One of my
    • 01:28:17questions was, I think partially addressed, but the reference to negotiations
    • 01:28:22Stakeholder negotiations in the Lansing comments. I wonder if I can get
    • 01:28:25more perspective from Lancium
    • 01:28:30on what that entails, what the potential
    • 01:28:35offering for a compromise solution is.
    • 01:28:39I'm just curious how that could potentially be resolved through these negotiations.
    • 01:28:43So, Evan, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.
    • 01:28:46Yeah, I appreciate that, Bill. And I'm kind
    • 01:28:50of hesitant to speak on it further just because we don't have legal counsel here
    • 01:28:53and admittedly, you know, fairly new to Lancium, I have been involved
    • 01:28:57with those quote unquote negotiations from a distance.
    • 01:29:00So I think we listed Keith as the primary
    • 01:29:04contact who's our general counsel for Lancium. So I'd be happy
    • 01:29:08to connect you too if you want to discuss further.
    • 01:29:13Okay. Does this, you might not be the answer to this question,
    • 01:29:17but maybe. Matt, I don't know if you're up to speed on this. Does this
    • 01:29:20NPRR impact the patent dispute in any way?
    • 01:29:28I think just from hearing Clayton's comments and
    • 01:29:31reading the language of it, I understand that that
    • 01:29:35is Chola's position, but ERCOT is not
    • 01:29:39taking a position on that at this time. Okay.
    • 01:29:45And then Clayton, do you have any sense
    • 01:29:48on how much this is preventing existing CLRs
    • 01:29:52in participating in the ERCOT markets?
    • 01:29:57Yeah, we know that it's, it's causing all the Bitcoin miners pause.
    • 01:30:01There's, there are a few of them that have went ahead and
    • 01:30:05bought the product from Lancium because of that, but there are a lot
    • 01:30:08of others that use other products and Lancium have sued at
    • 01:30:12least one of those providers. So at least everybody
    • 01:30:16kind of in a, in a. Unknown area.
    • 01:30:20The idea is that it would be best if all these guys were
    • 01:30:24in not only doing the CLR provision, but doing,
    • 01:30:27doing it with, you know, telemetry. Even the SCAD that doesn't require
    • 01:30:31CLR in, you know, with the telemetry,
    • 01:30:34so that ERCOT always has the availability. But as soon as you do any kind
    • 01:30:38of qualification and you're putting a big target on your back and
    • 01:30:45then Matt, it sounds like you guys are involved in these negotiations.
    • 01:30:48I'm curious, what's ERCOT's perspective?
    • 01:30:53Yes. So as I was mentioning and I
    • 01:30:56think as Evan raised,
    • 01:31:00Lancium did bring us a proposal
    • 01:31:04to license
    • 01:31:09their intellectual property for market participants.
    • 01:31:13So, you know, again, I would not characterize
    • 01:31:17it as negotiations. I think that ERCOT's
    • 01:31:20discussions with Lancium have just been around trying to understand what exactly
    • 01:31:24that proposal is. And I
    • 01:31:30expect those conversations to continue.
    • 01:31:34But to be clear, you know, ERCOT is not agreeing
    • 01:31:39to or negotiating anything. I think anything like a licensing
    • 01:31:43proposal would need to come to
    • 01:31:47the stakeholders at some point before.
    • 01:31:50Sorry, I don't want to ask questions you can't answer,
    • 01:31:53but ERCOT to be licensing the software or
    • 01:31:57market participants for CLRs,
    • 01:32:01I think it's, that's probably something
    • 01:32:04I can't get into at this time. But I think those would be the kind
    • 01:32:07of questions I understand stakeholders would be interested in if this were to
    • 01:32:11proceed. Yeah, very much so.
    • 01:32:13Okay, Matt, quick question for you.
    • 01:32:17So is this
    • 01:32:21the right avenue? This is the question that I had and I'm glad
    • 01:32:25that you're here today. So they're asking for
    • 01:32:28a review of this patent and
    • 01:32:33the impact it would have on these types of resources.
    • 01:32:37Is this typically the avenue in which those requests are made?
    • 01:32:41Is it through an NPRR, an alternative
    • 01:32:45process that would
    • 01:32:48make more legal sense? I'm not sure if there's
    • 01:32:52just some optionality there. Yeah,
    • 01:32:55that's a good question. You know,
    • 01:33:04I want to make sure that I'm not stepping too
    • 01:33:08far ahead of anything. I think that what JOLA
    • 01:33:11is raising with this NPRR,
    • 01:33:14Jola is alleging. Well, I won't speak for them beyond what's in there
    • 01:33:19comments, but they're alleging that this NPRR would get to a,
    • 01:33:23an intellectual property question.
    • 01:33:27And so of course, intellectual property,
    • 01:33:31that is not my area of expertise, as everybody knows.
    • 01:33:33But there is a, you know,
    • 01:33:37there's court litigation for that. There's, there's the Patent
    • 01:33:41Office as well. But,
    • 01:33:46you know, setting that aside, I think ERCOT
    • 01:33:50stakeholders can always address things that are impactful
    • 01:33:54to the ERCOT market through revision request processes.
    • 01:33:59So, you know, I think
    • 01:34:04that's probably about all I would say at this point. And just say we would,
    • 01:34:07you know, I think probably not.
    • 01:34:12Well, yeah, just that we would probably have more of a position in the
    • 01:34:15first quarter. I appreciate that. I didn't ask that question
    • 01:34:20to put you into waters that you're not supposed to be in. I'm just
    • 01:34:24wondering if this is the right avenue for
    • 01:34:28these discussions in this forum.
    • 01:34:31So I appreciate it. Sorry if that was an unfair question.
    • 01:34:36Bill. Matt, do you know when.
    • 01:34:40What's the next step for the negotiations? I think
    • 01:34:44we would be interested in an update. Obviously, we're not
    • 01:34:47going to move this forward today. It doesn't sound like people aren't comfortable,
    • 01:34:51but we would be very
    • 01:34:55much interested in what the potential deal
    • 01:34:59here is. You mentioned licensing, and if ERCOT's
    • 01:35:03paying for a license would be curious who's ultimately responsible for that cost.
    • 01:35:09So I yeah, I'm just curious
    • 01:35:13on what, when the next meeting is, next steps, will we have an update in
    • 01:35:17January or is this going to be longer than that?
    • 01:35:22I would say, you know,
    • 01:35:26ERCOT's still trying to understand what
    • 01:35:29is being proposed, so I
    • 01:35:34can't commit to a timeline yet. I would say probably
    • 01:35:38January is too soon, maybe February would be more likely.
    • 01:35:41But it's certainly our goal to address this
    • 01:35:46in the first quarter of next year. Okay, thank you,
    • 01:35:50Ian.
    • 01:35:57Sorry, I'm trying to gather how I want to ask this. So,
    • 01:36:00Matt, there's an NPRR
    • 01:36:04out there. I'm thinking, I'm laying
    • 01:36:07out how I'm thinking about this and tell me where I'm wrong or tell me
    • 01:36:11I'm missing kind of thing. Cholla has
    • 01:36:19presented an NPRR to clarify the protocols.
    • 01:36:23Part B of that is they believe that that
    • 01:36:27then has other ramifications to things
    • 01:36:30outside the ERCOT process.
    • 01:36:33ERCOT is hoping for additional time for these
    • 01:36:37discussions that they're having to create a
    • 01:36:42more complete idea in Q1 of
    • 01:36:46their thoughts of this that then could help
    • 01:36:50stakeholders understand if the
    • 01:36:54clarifications CHOIA is presenting to the protocols have
    • 01:37:00impacts outside of just the protocols.
    • 01:37:04Am I thinking about this in a semi decent
    • 01:37:08way? I think that's right. Okay. Okay.
    • 01:37:12Yeah. And then my question would be
    • 01:37:15to ERCOT in Q1 is to really help
    • 01:37:19stakeholders understand are we overstepping our
    • 01:37:23bounds by clarifying our protocols or not?
    • 01:37:26Because that's all at the end of the day, that I would
    • 01:37:30think we are doing by clarifying the protocols, or I should
    • 01:37:34say by adopting this. NPRR. Thank you.
    • 01:37:38Thank you, Ann Clayton.
    • 01:37:44Yeah, I don't know if Ian was intending to tee me up or not,
    • 01:37:47but. Yeah, that, that is the question. I mean,
    • 01:37:51anybody can clarify the protocols and that's all this is.
    • 01:37:55So I, I think the part B argument in
    • 01:37:58Ian's discussion there puts
    • 01:38:02it in ERCOT's court to kind of rule on whether or not
    • 01:38:05ERCOT believes that it applies in the
    • 01:38:10intellectual property or not. Which, you know,
    • 01:38:13to be honest, I don't know if that's ERCOT's to answer. It seems to be
    • 01:38:17more of a Patent Office slash,
    • 01:38:20you know, court system type question. So I don't even know if
    • 01:38:24we need to go there. So the question is, what are we really
    • 01:38:28trying to do? And I don't see any reason to hold up a
    • 01:38:31clarification of the protocols for some decision
    • 01:38:35in that realm. And what am I missing? I guess I
    • 01:38:48think that might have been to Matt.
    • 01:38:51Sorry, I wasn't sure. If that was to me,
    • 01:38:55I think those
    • 01:38:58are, I think all of the right questions. I can't commit at this point in
    • 01:39:02time to how or what position ERCOT will
    • 01:39:06take, but I can say that we are continuing to
    • 01:39:09try to understand the landscape and expect to have more
    • 01:39:14in the first quarter, but that's probably all I can say at this time.
    • 01:39:18Okay. And I would just clarify, as has been
    • 01:39:22pointed out, that we're kind of holding up on reliability in the system
    • 01:39:26for that decision.
    • 01:39:30And I guess. I'm sorry, I had another point, if I can.
    • 01:39:34Diana, to your point, this has been researched
    • 01:39:38in the patent court system. The results of the patent
    • 01:39:42court system are what I have put in
    • 01:39:46my comments, and I can follow up and provide the
    • 01:39:49documents, the actual root documents for those
    • 01:39:53if that would help. I'll just file those as
    • 01:39:57another set of comments. That would be perfect. Clayton,
    • 01:40:00thank you. You bet,
    • 01:40:05Caitlin.
    • 01:40:11Thanks, Diana. I don't know
    • 01:40:14want to get involved in this one. I just wanted to say I really appreciated
    • 01:40:19the way Ian laid this out. Right. I think part
    • 01:40:24A is the protocol clarification.
    • 01:40:27Part B is how that gets applied.
    • 01:40:31And I think very little, if any of how
    • 01:40:34that gets applied is really under stakeholder purview.
    • 01:40:38You know, I think you signed on to chair
    • 01:40:42PRs, not to be judge of a patent court
    • 01:40:46and thinking about things like, right, we do things,
    • 01:40:51price corrections, other things, a lot that affect the
    • 01:40:56ICE market. And we're aware of that, we talk about it,
    • 01:41:00but we only pull that into the stakeholder
    • 01:41:04process, you know, in a. In a very limited
    • 01:41:08manner. That's. That's not our purview at all. So I
    • 01:41:11think kind of keeping in mind the part A
    • 01:41:15that we're responsible for and trying to make
    • 01:41:19kind of that judgment call based on what we're experts
    • 01:41:23in and the protocol that we see them is
    • 01:41:28really where we should focus kind of
    • 01:41:31generally, not. Not really speaking to the specific issue.
    • 01:41:38Thank you, Caitlin.
    • Clip 10 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
      01:41:43 So it sounds like this one was
    • 01:41:48favored to be tabled.
    • 01:41:52Is that what I heard from everybody? Table this item. All right,
    • 01:41:57Corey, we can go. Can put
    • 01:42:01NPRR1262 on the combo
    • 01:42:06ballot to table. What?
    • 01:42:10Sorry, did I miss something? No, I'm just making sure that you just
    • 01:42:13say the true statement that everyone is comfortable with having the tabling of NPRR1262
    • 01:42:17on the combo ballot. Nobody wanted to make a. Any other decisions
    • 01:42:22in case. Yeah, in case anybody wanted to recommend approval or. Or they didn't want
    • 01:42:25it to be tabled or whatever. I just didn't want to go too far down
    • 01:42:28that path. But I'm not seeing anything getting heads and
    • 01:42:31phones, so I guess I'm okay. Cool. Clayton,
    • 01:42:35you had a question for you. Yeah,
    • 01:42:38I mean, I don't want a table indefinitely. Can we make sure that we pick
    • 01:42:42this back up next month?
    • 01:42:45It didn't sound like it would be ready in January. I'm not sure
    • 01:42:49if I misunderstood that, but I think. I think the commitment was first quarter of
    • 01:42:53next next year. And so I think it may be better suited
    • 01:42:56to just be tabled. Matt, did I hear that correctly? I guess
    • 01:43:00I would just say. I mean, ERCOT's not opposed to revisiting this at the
    • 01:43:04January PRS meeting. And if we have something then, of course we'll raise
    • 01:43:07it then. But yeah,
    • 01:43:10tabled items are always available to be taken up at every PRS
    • 01:43:14meeting because they're noticed for a possible vote. So it can
    • 01:43:18be taken up whenever for discussion. So what is the will of
    • 01:43:21the group? Would we prefer to have it tabled or tabled for a
    • 01:43:25time certain?
    • 01:43:29I'm okay with just the regular table if that helps to go through.
    • 01:43:34Okay. All about the holiday spirit.
    • 01:43:38Okay, so sounds like we're good to
    • 01:43:42have it tabled with no time certainty on it.
    • 01:43:47And then as Corey reminded us, anything that's tabled is always available
    • 01:43:51for us to have discussion at future PRS meetings.
    • 01:44:08Okay.
    • 01:44:13All right, so Corey brought up the combo ballot of
    • 01:44:17all the items. We'll need a motion and a second to
    • 01:44:21vote on the items that Corey has up on the screen. We have a motion
    • 01:44:24by bill. We have a second second
    • 01:44:30by Jim Lee.
    • 01:44:34Thank you, everybody. All right, let's give Corey just a
    • 01:44:37second and we'll get that teed up. All right,
    • 01:44:41Giving it folks every chance on the phone to take a look.
    • 01:44:48All right, on our motion to approve the combo ballot, we will start up with
    • 01:44:51consumers. Still no Eric.
    • 01:44:57How about start with Melissa? Yes, thanks,
    • 01:44:59Corey. Thank you. Onto our co ops.
    • 01:45:02Lucas. Yes, thank you.
    • 01:45:06Thank you. Still have Eric.
    • 01:45:09Le on to our
    • 01:45:13independent generators. Andy. Yes,
    • 01:45:16thanks, Corey. Thank you. Alex.
    • 01:45:19Yes, thank you. Caitlin?
    • 01:45:26Yes, thank you. David.
    • 01:45:29Yes, thank you. Thank you. On to
    • 01:45:33our WMS. John.
    • 01:45:36Yes, thanks, sir. Onto our IREPs bill.
    • 01:45:40Yes, thank you,
    • 01:45:44Aaron. Onto our IOUs.
    • 01:45:48Martha. Yes, thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks.
    • 01:45:51Thank you. On to our munis. Diana. Yes, thank you,
    • 01:45:58Ashley and Faye.
    • 01:46:02Yes. Thank you, Corey. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously.
    • 01:46:06Thank you all. Thank you, Corey.
    • 01:46:12Okay, so I believe that takes us to the
    • 01:46:16end. Just as a note, next year we are
    • 01:46:19having PRS on Wednesdays instead of Thursdays,
    • 01:46:23so we don't Have a really fun filled day like we did today with open
    • 01:46:27meeting and trying to work through those logistics.
    • 01:46:30And just real quickly, big thank you
    • 01:46:33to everybody. I know that there's a lot of things that we are all working
    • 01:46:37on and we could not do this up here without all of you.
    • 01:46:41Thank you to Corey and Troy and Susie and everybody
    • 01:46:45that is Erin, everybody who is
    • 01:46:49just helping us work these meetings, the prep, the files.
    • 01:46:53It's a lot of work that goes on behind the scene and it doesn't get
    • 01:46:56said enough. So thank you so much. We appreciate it. Thank you all for letting
    • 01:46:59us be up here this year. We appreciate it.
    • 01:47:03Andy, did you have anything? No. Second all of that and again
    • 01:47:06appreciate ERCOT support for us. There's a lot that happens behind the scenes.
    • 01:47:09Martha knows that and we really appreciate all the back
    • 01:47:13work that you all do so that PRS can run as smoothly as it
    • 01:47:17can. And maybe with that I'll hand it to Marca.
    • 01:47:20Yeah, thanks. I just had a quick administrative topic
    • 01:47:23I wanted to raise before we adjourn. So I know
    • 01:47:27that the remain tabled list is not being sent by email
    • 01:47:30anymore because that was causing some confusion or maybe
    • 01:47:34some false expectations about what was eligible for a vote.
    • 01:47:37But I wanted to ask whether going into 2025,
    • 01:47:41PRS leadership and in market roles could maybe have a discussion
    • 01:47:45outside of the meeting about whether Corey could send
    • 01:47:49perhaps the anticipated combo ballot by email sometime
    • 01:47:53before the meeting. That would at least kind of flag the items that either
    • 01:47:58have IAS ready that look uncontroversial by
    • 01:48:02no impact or have received a subcommittee recomm
    • 01:48:05recommendation that where at that subcommittee there was
    • 01:48:09unanimous approval. Therefore it looks like a combo ballot item.
    • 01:48:12So not looking for an answer today, but would just appreciate
    • 01:48:16if that's something you all could consider for next year. Thanks,
    • 01:48:22that's helpful. And I think, you know, we did have
    • 01:48:26something like that. We had an iteration of that previously and then there
    • 01:48:30were some questions as to what was sent and
    • 01:48:34then there would be something that was discussed that may have not been included
    • 01:48:38on that list. And so that's why we will
    • 01:48:42have those conversations that anything that's tabled is
    • 01:48:45up for discussion at PRS.
    • 01:48:48But it's a good suggestion because there are and that's why we've
    • 01:48:52started spending some time on the tabled Items under section
    • 01:48:556. Maybe not every. Everybody's plugged into all the different
    • 01:48:59iterations of those meetings. And so our goal with Section
    • 01:49:02six is just a quick update and if somebody was at
    • 01:49:06those meetings, maybe there was something that was discussed that,
    • 01:49:10you know, they would like PRS's input on or a conversation
    • 01:49:14on that, but just flagging it and letting it know
    • 01:49:17because there we had it pared down and now we're starting
    • 01:49:21to expand the table list. It's certainly worth
    • 01:49:24considering because there is an email list, but I
    • 01:49:28think everybody gets so many emails that sometimes it's hard to
    • 01:49:32keep up with all the emails and the different iterations of the comments
    • 01:49:36and maybe what's ready or maybe somebody has asked this to be
    • 01:49:39tabled for an additional month. So it's a good suggestion.
    • 01:49:43We'll definitely look at it for next year.
    • 01:49:46Roy and Bob, I see you're second to Martha's
    • 01:49:49too, so thank you. Go ahead, Roy. Yeah, I was going to say I
    • 01:49:53appreciate Martha's request. I think, you know,
    • 01:49:56maybe just a disclaimer, you know, to go in the email regarding
    • 01:50:01anything that's tabled could be brought up. You know,
    • 01:50:05might might be a good way to manage that so that expectations
    • 01:50:09are not, you know, out of bounds. Thanks.
    • 01:50:13Yeah, Roy, this is Andy and we've had side
    • 01:50:17conversations about that specific thing. I think one of the concerns was because it
    • 01:50:20was coming from ERCOT, it seemed a little bit more formal. And so one
    • 01:50:24of the things we explored was as the chair and vice chair, we would
    • 01:50:27be kind of giving a. Almost like a straw man,
    • 01:50:31if you want to call it that, in terms of what we know,
    • 01:50:35given the conversations, you know, based on subcommittee
    • 01:50:40unanimous approvals. But to your point, having a disclosure
    • 01:50:43too is a kind of a catch all but making it seem like
    • 01:50:47that we're not stopping anyone from bringing
    • 01:50:51anything up. But again, on the flip side, it's folks want to
    • 01:50:54be aware that if they weren't paying attention, things that have been unanimously
    • 01:50:58moving across the working groups and subcommittees, you know, it's about to
    • 01:51:02hit NPRRs and the time is now and sometimes folks
    • 01:51:05may be potentially not as plugged in and may have missed
    • 01:51:08the mark there. So appreciate everyone's comments here. We're certainly
    • 01:51:12going to look to do something here in Q1 of 2025 to continue
    • 01:51:16to make NPRRs more efficient.
    • Clip 11 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
      01:51:21Excellent. Thank you. All right
    • 01:51:26with that, have a good holiday everybody.
    • 01:51:29Thank you so much for being here and we will see you all next year.
    2024-prs-combined-ballot-20241212
    Dec 11, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
    2024-prs-nprr1251-ballot-20241212
    Dec 11, 2024 - xls - 111 KB
    Agenda_prs_20241212_v2
    Dec 09, 2024 - docx - 45.7 KB
    Draft-minutes-prs-20241114
    Dec 04, 2024 - docx - 76.2 KB
    Prs_december_2024_project_update
    Dec 09, 2024 - pptx - 234.5 KB
    Mp-guide-for-dashboard-roadmap
    Dec 09, 2024 - pptx - 404.9 KB
    December-12,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Dec 09, 2024 - zip - 7.9 MB