12/05/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 1:25:31
Duration 2:04:50
Loaded: 68.53%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 39:19
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Item 0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - ERCOT Staff
    00:00:55
    Good morning everyone. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT. And before
  • 00:00:58
    we get started with today's ROS meeting, I'm just going to quickly go
  • 00:01:02
    over the meeting room efficiencies. Erin has already put this in
  • 00:01:05
    the chat, but we are using the chat in this WebEx only
  • 00:01:09
    meeting to cue for motions or discussion. And then please
  • 00:01:14
    remain on mute until the chair recognizes you.
  • 00:01:18
    And then also as we go to the balloting process, please remember
  • 00:01:21
    to unmute yourself as we approach your segment.
  • 00:01:24
    And then after you have voted, please return to the mute function.
  • 00:01:29
    That'll help us be a little more efficient. If the meeting ends
  • 00:01:32
    for any reason, give us just a few minutes, we'll restart. You should be able
  • 00:01:35
    to log in with the same meeting details and if we are
  • 00:01:38
    unable to use those, we will forward something to the ROTHS listserv.
  • 00:01:43
    And with that, Katie, we are ready to get started.
  • 00:01:47
    And you do have a quorum this morning.
  • 00:01:52
    Thanks, Susie. Thanks for laying it out. Welcome to our
  • 00:01:55
    last ROS meeting of the year. Hope everyone's okay with
  • 00:02:00
    having the WebEx. I figured we all had a lot going on in these
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
    00:02:03
    last few weeks before the holidays. I'll let
  • 00:02:07
    Erin pull up the antitrust and then I'll go over all the alt
  • 00:02:10
    reps that we have.
  • 00:02:23
    Okay. Hopefully everyone had a chance to read it. So for this
  • 00:02:27
    morning, for our alt rep list,
  • 00:02:32
    Nabaraj has Mary Ellen Williams.
  • 00:02:36
    Adam Cochran has Paul Messman.
  • 00:02:40
    Starting at 11am Resme
  • 00:02:43
    with Shell has Shane Thomas. And then Chris Letrick
  • 00:02:48
    with Denton Municipal has Cody Tenorio.
  • 00:02:52
    And then for our proxy, Jennifer Smith
  • 00:02:55
    has given her proxy to Chris Hendricks. And I believe that is
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
    00:03:00
    the entire list. So yeah,
  • 00:03:11
    so let's take a quick peek at what we're we've got
  • 00:03:14
    before us this morning. So I'll give you a TAC update in just a
  • 00:03:18
    second. We are normal two ERCOT
  • 00:03:22
    reports. We have one PGRR before us
  • 00:03:25
    with an IA and then a few language
  • 00:03:29
    review and then
  • 00:03:33
    we have this NPRR1257 that was
  • 00:03:37
    actually already discussed at PDCWG but it's now been formally referred
  • 00:03:41
    to us. We have one item on our tabled
  • 00:03:45
    list and then we start going into our working group
  • 00:03:48
    updates. So OWG, PLWG,
  • 00:03:53
    PDCWG, NDSWG. And then
  • 00:03:56
    we'll do our combo ballot and then finish off with the rest.
  • 00:04:00
    We will spend a few minutes at the end talking about our open
  • 00:04:03
    action items list as we did last month. Just saying if we
  • 00:04:07
    can streamline what's what's on there going into
  • 00:04:11
    the new year. So that's what we got before
  • 00:04:14
    us. And we'll go back up.
  • Item 3 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update - Katie Rich
    00:04:22
    And for the TAC update, just a couple of
  • 00:04:25
    items. TAC and the board did approve
  • 00:04:30
    NPRR1247. That was the new economic cost test
  • 00:04:35
    and all of ROS's RRS were approved. And then
  • 00:04:39
    one thing to note is that ERCOT staff
  • 00:04:43
    laid out some proposed revisions to the MDRPOC,
  • 00:04:46
    which is the outage scheduling, and they are
  • 00:04:50
    looking to move to a more probabilistic based approach
  • 00:04:55
    next year for calculating those.
  • Item 4 - ERCOT Reports
    00:05:01
    All right, looks like the queue is clear. All right,
  • 00:05:05
    so let's move into our ERCOT reports. We'll start with Alex and the operations
  • 00:05:09
    report.
  • 00:05:12
    Morning, Arash. This is Alex Lee from ERCOT. Can you hear me?
  • 00:05:15
    Okay, we can go ahead.
  • Item 4.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
    00:05:19
    All right, thank you. For the month of October,
  • 00:05:22
    the ERCOT peak demand was 72,540
  • 00:05:26
    megawatt, which happened on October 3rd. For our
  • 00:05:30
    HE 1700, this load was 1306
  • 00:05:35
    megawatt, higher than 2023 October peak demand.
  • 00:05:39
    There were three frequency events, all of
  • 00:05:42
    which were due to unit trips. But There were
  • 00:05:45
    no ECRs or RRS that
  • 00:05:49
    were released during the month of October. There were
  • 00:05:52
    no DC TIE curtailments and there were
  • 00:05:56
    49 HRUC commitments,
  • 00:05:59
    a lot of which were related to both either the capacity
  • 00:06:03
    issues or the congestions.
  • 00:06:08
    There were seven OCN operating condition notice that
  • 00:06:11
    were issued, four of which were related to Panhandle.
  • 00:06:16
    Out of four, three were simply notifying that there's a topology
  • 00:06:20
    change that impacts the limit. One relates to the
  • 00:06:24
    outage actually resulting in ERCOT taking
  • 00:06:28
    the manual action for the PNHNDL GTC IROL.
  • 00:06:33
    There were two OCN issues related to
  • 00:06:36
    the extreme hot weather as well as
  • 00:06:40
    a potential capacity shortage reserve.
  • 00:06:44
    And then there were one issued for
  • 00:06:47
    the GTC feed.
  • 00:06:52
    Lastly, there were four advisories issued for
  • 00:06:56
    GMD K-7 or higher, but they had minimal impact in
  • 00:06:59
    terms of real time operations. And the following table
  • 00:07:03
    shows the number of days that each GTC were
  • 00:07:08
    activated and binding in scad.
  • 00:07:11
    With that, I'll open the floor for any questions.
  • 00:07:18
    Thanks, Alex. It looks like the queue is clear,
  • 00:07:21
    but appreciate your update. Thank you.
  • 00:07:25
    Thank you. And that takes us on to the system planning report
  • 00:07:28
    is Ping on. Yes, Katie.
  • Item 4.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan
    00:07:31
    Good morning everyone. So for this month's system
  • 00:07:35
    planning report, I just have a quick heads up.
  • 00:07:39
    So ERCOT plans to bring another update on
  • 00:07:43
    the EHV 765-kV infrastructure plan to
  • 00:07:46
    the December RPG meeting which
  • 00:07:50
    has been rescheduled to December 16th.
  • 00:07:53
    And it will be a WebEx only meeting. So if
  • 00:07:57
    you're interested, please Stay tuned for more discussions on
  • 00:08:00
    the EHV 765-kV
  • 00:08:04
    plan. That's all I have, but I'll be more than happy to take any
  • 00:08:08
    questions.
  • 00:08:15
    Thanks, Ping. It looks like the queue is clear. I appreciate
  • 00:08:19
    that update. Thanks.
  • Item 5 - ROS Revision Requests - Vote - Katie Rich
    00:08:27
    Okay, that takes us on to item five and we
  • 00:08:31
    have one IA before us for PGRR117.
  • 00:08:43
    Give you guys a second to look at this if you haven't already.
  • Item 5.1 - PGRR117, Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Changes
    00:09:04
    You can see the O&M costs there in
  • 00:09:08
    the range and then it looks like this could take effect
  • 00:09:11
    following PUC approval.
  • 00:09:15
    So it is before us today as a voting item.
  • 00:09:20
    Are there any concerns about moving this forward?
  • 00:09:33
    Okay, if not, then we can add this as our
  • 00:09:37
    first item for the. Yep, there we go on
  • 00:09:41
    the combo ballot. Thanks,
  • 00:09:44
    Erin.
  • 00:09:56
    That will take us into language review
  • 00:09:59
    for some fairly new items
  • 00:10:03
    that are coming to us today. So the first, first one is
  • Item 5.2 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
    00:10:07
    NOGRR272, the Advanced
  • 00:10:10
    Grid support requirements for invert based batteries.
  • 00:10:15
    And I, I know that we've already
  • 00:10:19
    had some comments filed by Jupiter
  • 00:10:23
    Power on this one and I think that there were others
  • 00:10:27
    that wanted to speak. So I will let Jupiter
  • 00:10:31
    pop in the queue or Tesla.
  • 00:10:36
    All right. Caitlin, did you want to go through your comments for us?
  • 00:10:39
    Yep. Sorry, can you hear me, Katie? I can.
  • 00:10:44
    Okay. And sorry, I meant to get in the queue immediately but I'm having
  • 00:10:47
    some technical difficulties today.
  • 00:10:51
    First, you know, apologies for getting news in late last yesterday,
  • 00:10:56
    but I think we really just wanted to raise the flag on this one
  • 00:11:00
    and make sure that there is more discussion about
  • 00:11:04
    this proposal. And so to outline my
  • 00:11:08
    comments I would put our concerns into two
  • 00:11:11
    buckets. We have both technical and policy
  • 00:11:15
    concerns with this. NOGRR is written right now on the
  • 00:11:18
    technical side, I understand there's
  • 00:11:22
    an accompanying PGRR that's a little bit more detailed, but really
  • 00:11:26
    on the NOGRR, these read to be performance standards.
  • 00:11:30
    And so as the ESR operator,
  • 00:11:33
    in order to be able to agree that we can do this in
  • 00:11:37
    good faith, right, this would become a compliance standard, we need
  • 00:11:41
    to know that we can comply with what is asked
  • 00:11:44
    for. I think these statements are very vague and we don't
  • 00:11:48
    know what constitutes compliance. So I think as a
  • 00:11:52
    starting step we would need to get language that really gets to the
  • 00:11:56
    specifics of what ERCOT and the ERM
  • 00:12:00
    would consider compliance or not in performance. And then
  • 00:12:03
    once we know that, I think this warrants more, hopefully public
  • 00:12:07
    discussion with the OEMs. So once we know what
  • 00:12:11
    those specific performance standards are,
  • 00:12:14
    we need to know this is something that OEMS can do on
  • 00:12:17
    this fairly aggressive timeline ERCOT laid out,
  • 00:12:21
    I don't think if these are performance standards it would be acceptable to
  • 00:12:25
    hear that it's feasible or that the models from the OEMs
  • 00:12:29
    show that they can do it. I think we really need to know that they
  • 00:12:32
    can do this in performance or operation.
  • 00:12:37
    The second bucket of our concerns is on the policy side.
  • 00:12:41
    I would say we have a big issue with this policy wise
  • 00:12:45
    and with especially the language and the justification.
  • 00:12:48
    This appears to be mandating that not
  • 00:12:52
    even a whole subset of technology but a subset of a subset
  • 00:12:55
    that only ESRs within IBRs pay for something
  • 00:13:00
    that ERCOT asserts has direct commercial benefits to the
  • 00:13:04
    grid. And they note increasing GTC limits. And so
  • 00:13:09
    that appears to be making some kind of causation
  • 00:13:12
    policy cut and then applying it in a way
  • 00:13:16
    that goes just to one subset.
  • 00:13:19
    And so I think on its face that is problematic for the
  • 00:13:23
    competitive market we're used to. I'd love to see it as,
  • 00:13:27
    you know, some kind of incentive or a market based product.
  • 00:13:31
    Understand that might be a longer term on taking but
  • 00:13:35
    we do have a problem with the way it's presented.
  • 00:13:37
    I think at a minimum we'd want to see this tabled for
  • 00:13:41
    more discussion. I have raised my concerns with
  • 00:13:45
    commission staff and so if this is something that needs
  • 00:13:49
    more policy input I would love to see that
  • 00:13:53
    and we narrow language to know what we
  • 00:13:57
    can comply with or not. I think the justification would
  • 00:14:01
    also need to be revised too. That's where you see some
  • 00:14:04
    pretty troubling I think implying that
  • 00:14:08
    causation is the justification for the NOGRR
  • 00:14:13
    and I will leave it at that.
  • 00:14:18
    Thanks Caitlin for laying that out.
  • 00:14:22
    We'll jump to Bob. Caitlin, thank you
  • 00:14:25
    for getting those comments in and actually to let everybody know
  • 00:14:29
    if there'd have been more time with this, you know, with us getting this
  • 00:14:32
    all done, these would probably been larger joint comments.
  • 00:14:36
    So I just wanted to get that out there. I'll probably file
  • 00:14:39
    something in support of what they've got out there. But on the bigger picture
  • 00:14:44
    I'm in the process of writing an NPRR to
  • 00:14:48
    try to address and get the conversation going on
  • 00:14:52
    the policy side of this. It's I've started
  • 00:14:55
    it all but I've ran into a snag and that's try because
  • 00:14:59
    I will have to create a new attachment
  • 00:15:02
    to section 22 and those are
  • 00:15:06
    fill in the blank forms that I don't know how to revise.
  • 00:15:10
    So I've asked for support from client services Corey
  • 00:15:15
    to help me figure that out. So that will be forthcoming
  • 00:15:18
    So I think that tabling this is probably the right path to
  • 00:15:22
    go for now.
  • 00:15:26
    Thanks, Bob. Yeah, certainly no problem with,
  • 00:15:29
    with tabling this and giving everybody more time to discuss.
  • 00:15:32
    I last night got a
  • 00:15:36
    question about sending it to dwg. I'm certainly
  • 00:15:40
    happy with that. To do that. We have had, you know,
  • 00:15:43
    some discussions at IBRWG, so it's
  • 00:15:47
    just a question of what's the will of ROS? Where would you like it to
  • 00:15:51
    go? Would you like it to go to one or the other or both?
  • 00:16:11
    Not seeing anyone in the queue.
  • 00:16:15
    Okay. Julia, you think both would make sense. Okay. And then I know you guys
  • 00:16:18
    have been doing some joint meetings. All right, Chase, thank you.
  • 00:16:23
    Yeah, Caitlin, go ahead. I think both would make
  • 00:16:27
    sense. I was just going to say we're pretty agnostic to where
  • 00:16:30
    this gets referred to. I'd love to see
  • 00:16:33
    more discussion at a higher level too, as we
  • 00:16:37
    get into those policy conversations.
  • 00:16:39
    I'll work with Bob Offline and we'll look to his
  • 00:16:43
    NPRR, but it might make sense to
  • 00:16:47
    be talking about it on the WMS side as well, if we
  • 00:16:50
    are really talking about things that,
  • 00:16:54
    you know, maybe should be a market product or incentive and
  • 00:16:58
    would correlate directly, in ERCOT's
  • 00:17:01
    words, with helping GTC limits.
  • 00:17:10
    Okay, Caitlin, that makes sense, Bob.
  • 00:17:14
    Yeah, that's why I'm writing the NPRR is because
  • 00:17:18
    this being a NOGRR, I wasn't sure how we could get to a
  • 00:17:22
    good, robust stakeholder discussion on
  • 00:17:26
    the policy side of this. And that's why I needed to write the NPRR.
  • 00:17:30
    We can get it over to WMS and others to also take
  • 00:17:33
    a look at that side of it.
  • 00:17:41
    Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me. Bill,
  • 00:17:44
    did you have something to add? Yeah, just a good question for
  • 00:17:48
    Caitlin and Bob. Obviously we've been talking
  • 00:17:52
    about IBR related reliability
  • 00:17:56
    concerns and issues for a while or kind of has raised this issue,
  • 00:18:01
    you know, a year ago at least. But more than that with the NOGRR245
  • 00:18:05
    discussion. So I just, I'm kind of curious, what, what do you guys
  • 00:18:09
    need to see to get comfortable
  • 00:18:12
    with this? Obviously, as we kind
  • 00:18:16
    of move forward in time and continue,
  • 00:18:19
    you know, interconnecting IBRs, the risk just increases.
  • 00:18:22
    So is it just. There's not enough detail in here the,
  • 00:18:26
    the requirements can't be met or you're not really sure how to meet them yet?
  • 00:18:29
    Or are we just going to like rehash all the 245 issues? Again,
  • 00:18:32
    I'm just kind of curious what you guys think needs to change here to
  • 00:18:37
    get reliability requirements in place so that we can address these risks.
  • 00:18:52
    Go ahead, Caitlin. Bob. I think Bob got in
  • 00:18:55
    the queue ahead of me, but I'm happy to speak first. Yeah, go ahead and
  • 00:18:58
    start, Caitlin. So I actually think,
  • 00:19:02
    you know, my understanding is this is probably the opposite approach
  • 00:19:06
    of NOGRR245 and it's TAC a different issue.
  • 00:19:11
    NOGRR245 was a
  • 00:19:16
    ride through requirements and that they were reliability
  • 00:19:20
    requirements specific to the resource.
  • 00:19:23
    This is for grid forming inverters
  • 00:19:27
    and the way this is written makes me think that they are looking at
  • 00:19:30
    the system and looking at things that not just
  • 00:19:34
    could ensure current reliability but help. We're talking
  • 00:19:38
    about increasing stability to the point where
  • 00:19:41
    you could relax or increase GTC limit.
  • 00:19:45
    And to me that is basically saying here is something extra
  • 00:19:49
    the system needs that we would like this
  • 00:19:52
    set of resources to pay for. And so
  • 00:19:56
    I think that's sort of a weird causation link, a weird way
  • 00:20:00
    to do that. Totally agree that a
  • 00:20:03
    product that provides more stability for the grid is a
  • 00:20:07
    good thing and that having grid forming technology for EFRS is a
  • 00:20:11
    great thing. The reference jurisdictions where in
  • 00:20:15
    this case that are using this, pay for this as a product,
  • 00:20:19
    they use sort of RFPs or it's
  • 00:20:22
    state funded. I think in Australia it's a little bit government funded.
  • 00:20:26
    So it's a little bit different in those reference places. It's not mandated.
  • 00:20:30
    We would love to see technology like this come on sooner.
  • 00:20:33
    But I think the difference between this and 245 is 245
  • 00:20:37
    is ride through requirements and it was looking at particular resources and
  • 00:20:42
    the requirements for this resource. This is requirements
  • 00:20:46
    that would increase stability to the point where
  • 00:20:49
    you have now new benefits. And it's looking at
  • 00:20:53
    the system and saying we want these things and the way
  • 00:20:56
    we're going to get these things is by having this set of resources
  • 00:21:01
    be mandated to implement something.
  • 00:21:07
    All right, I'll turn it over to Bob. I'm not
  • 00:21:11
    going to repeat everything that she just said because that was pretty much
  • 00:21:14
    what I was going to say. The only addition I'd make to that is one
  • 00:21:17
    of the, you know, Bill said it's because of more inverters
  • 00:21:21
    are being, you know, connected to the system. I would take that in
  • 00:21:25
    a little different way and look at it as we have a changing
  • 00:21:29
    topology and a changing grid moving forward.
  • 00:21:32
    And it's because of a lot of reasons. There's less thermal,
  • 00:21:36
    there's more renewable, there's more batteries getting on the
  • 00:21:40
    system. So the topology and the generation mix we have
  • 00:21:44
    is all having an effect on this. And like
  • 00:21:49
    Caitlin said, this is an enhancement to the grid that helps
  • 00:21:53
    the overall grid as a whole, regardless of
  • 00:21:56
    who does it. And it's just put on a small group and I'm
  • 00:21:59
    not advocating it go to everybody. That's why I'm advocating a.
  • 00:22:02
    A ancillary service so that those
  • 00:22:06
    that can and will will supply it and ERCOT can say just
  • 00:22:10
    exactly what they need. Because my understanding is you don't really need 100%
  • 00:22:14
    of grid forming inverters on the system to provide that stability.
  • 00:22:18
    There is a subset underneath that. That's where it could be.
  • 00:22:28
    Thanks Bob, I appreciate that additional context. We have
  • 00:22:31
    a couple more in the queue. Alex, go ahead.
  • 00:22:35
    Thank you. I'll be quick. I did just want to note
  • 00:22:39
    that I agree with what's being said. It seems like
  • 00:22:42
    in this case it is a subset and
  • 00:22:47
    there's a. Rather than using the stick,
  • 00:22:50
    wouldn't it be more consistent with the
  • 00:22:54
    way our market works to use the carrot and incentivize
  • 00:23:00
    this optional value service to
  • 00:23:05
    be installed and utilized rather
  • 00:23:08
    than penalizing. You know, Julia has posted in the
  • 00:23:11
    chat you could just have a requirement for all future systems.
  • 00:23:15
    That's one approach. Or we can simply
  • 00:23:19
    incentivize this with more of a. Of a carrot approach rather than a
  • 00:23:22
    stick.
  • 00:23:28
    Thanks, Alex.
  • 00:23:31
    Let's see. Michael.
  • 00:23:32
    Jewellery.
  • 00:23:43
    Michael, did you have something to add?
  • 00:23:57
    Bill, go ahead. So I guess Bob,
  • 00:24:00
    are you. The NPRR you're drafting will be an alternative to
  • 00:24:03
    this. So instead of a compliance requirement
  • 00:24:09
    it'll be a new product or something. Is that
  • 00:24:12
    the idea?
  • 00:24:24
    That was for you, Bob Helton.
  • 00:24:28
    Katie,
  • 00:24:33
    I can't hear Bob, but we can hear Michael now. So that's good.
  • 00:24:36
    Some progress. Yeah. Something about WebEx, it's not allowing when
  • 00:24:40
    you're connected by phone to necessarily get the mic to work.
  • 00:24:45
    Is Bob available? But I didn't want to interrupt.
  • 00:24:51
    I haven't heard Bob chime in so we'll let him jump in the queue if
  • 00:24:54
    he's available. But we'll let you go ahead. Michael. Yeah, thank you. Sorry for
  • 00:24:57
    the technical problems. Just following up,
  • 00:25:01
    I think with what Jupiter, what Caitlin is talking about, what Bob was talking
  • 00:25:04
    about is great. By way of example + power
  • 00:25:08
    in Hawaii, the customer there wanted
  • 00:25:12
    these additional functionalities and it was a paid for enhancement to
  • 00:25:16
    the deployment of the ESR in order to be able to get that.
  • 00:25:19
    That's the carrot kind of approach. That really does make sense because there
  • 00:25:23
    are multiple values that you can get out of these,
  • 00:25:28
    you know, four quadrant inverters thanks,
  • 00:25:39
    Michael. We'll call
  • 00:25:43
    for Bob one more time and then if not we'll go ahead and make the
  • 00:25:46
    table and referral.
  • 00:25:53
    Go ahead, Caitlin. Yeah, I just, I see Julia
  • 00:25:58
    writing in the chat and so I kind of, I can't resist closing.
  • 00:26:02
    I think that's sort of step one. You know, I stand
  • 00:26:06
    on my policy cut and I
  • 00:26:10
    think Bob Helton does too and I think we want to see that. But I
  • 00:26:13
    think the problem with this NOGRR is written as
  • 00:26:16
    the language is so vague we don't know exactly what
  • 00:26:20
    is being looked for. And maybe this would help with Bill's
  • 00:26:24
    questions as well. I think when you're talking about grid forming
  • 00:26:28
    inverters, it's sort of one of those terms that can mean different
  • 00:26:32
    thing to a different person. And so a true
  • 00:26:36
    grid forming technology is something like Blackstart
  • 00:26:39
    services. That is a product that should get paid. If we
  • 00:26:43
    are looking for something that existing inverters can do,
  • 00:26:47
    you know, but it's maybe maintaining something instead of following that's
  • 00:26:52
    more narrow. I think that's maybe a different conversation.
  • 00:26:55
    And so that's why you sort of have to have both conversations.
  • 00:27:00
    And I, you know, I think Bob Helton and I would agree when
  • 00:27:04
    we're talking about a paid product that is certainly something that we would
  • 00:27:08
    think that the thermals and the people who provide inertia and
  • 00:27:12
    stability as is would get paid for as
  • 00:27:15
    well. I agree with Bob also on his causation points
  • 00:27:19
    and especially in the context of ESRs, you know,
  • 00:27:22
    that is something by nature of being able to
  • 00:27:26
    charge and discharge. We locate specifically at
  • 00:27:30
    places that would help with GTCs because that's also how
  • 00:27:33
    we make money in the energy only market. Right. The price signals tell us,
  • 00:27:37
    you know, sometimes this place needs something that is charging and sometimes
  • 00:27:40
    it needs something that is discharging. So sort of inherent
  • 00:27:44
    in our nature is helping with those GTCs to begin with
  • 00:27:48
    and so understanding, you know, there's a lot of things changing
  • 00:27:51
    on the grid where we could have more stability.
  • 00:27:56
    But you know, I think the way this applies that to
  • 00:28:00
    ESRs in particular is a little bit troubling.
  • 00:28:08
    I appreciate that explanation. Two more in the queue.
  • 00:28:12
    Fred, did you want to respond?
  • 00:28:16
    Hi, this Fred, can you hear me? Yes,
  • 00:28:19
    go ahead. Hi, thank you. I think I understand
  • 00:28:23
    we will have some more discussion in the stakeholder meetings later
  • 00:28:27
    on, but I just kind of want to provide
  • 00:28:31
    a quick high level overview to the group.
  • 00:28:36
    If you are not familiar with our proposal yet,
  • 00:28:39
    I think it just to, I would say comments
  • 00:28:43
    to several comments related to the technical part
  • 00:28:48
    I think the first one is the technical details
  • 00:28:52
    we have presented as kind of concept to
  • 00:28:56
    the IBR working group on a regular basis and
  • 00:29:01
    we also publish we call it a kite line for that one
  • 00:29:05
    with the intention along with NOGRR and the PGRR here
  • 00:29:09
    those requirements and performance expectation as Catherine mentioned
  • 00:29:12
    is critical importance and we definitely recognize
  • 00:29:16
    it. So our intention is to have those performance
  • 00:29:21
    in terms of model quality how it should be verified
  • 00:29:25
    check it. It will be part of the similar
  • 00:29:29
    to our existing DW procedure menu for the
  • 00:29:33
    other model performance and quality performance.
  • 00:29:37
    That's where we intend to have all those details added
  • 00:29:40
    to the DW procedure menu. I will be happy to work
  • 00:29:45
    with the teams to see if there are other location is
  • 00:29:48
    a proper way to include those technical performance details.
  • 00:29:53
    But we do have those performance details defined and
  • 00:29:56
    then we presented to IBR working group previously.
  • 00:30:00
    The second one I would say the our proposal
  • 00:30:05
    the intent is not to require
  • 00:30:09
    additional hardware which as several
  • 00:30:13
    commenters mentioned it in other regions because they
  • 00:30:17
    have a specific need in
  • 00:30:22
    their grid. So they
  • 00:30:26
    do specify additional performance and need
  • 00:30:30
    on hardware as a result they procure for it.
  • 00:30:34
    Our proposal is expectation
  • 00:30:39
    is not to require additional hardware and
  • 00:30:43
    will not have impact to the normal operation.
  • 00:30:49
    The need is when you are capable based
  • 00:30:53
    on the condition you operated you can
  • 00:30:57
    help to provide a support to the grid and that will provide a benefit
  • 00:31:00
    to the grid for the security and security
  • 00:31:04
    perspective. So just want
  • 00:31:08
    to kind of point those two for the group to consider But
  • 00:31:12
    I understand we can have we are going to have more discussion in
  • 00:31:15
    the stakeholder meetings. Thank you.
  • 00:31:19
    And another one quicker one I think we make it clear
  • 00:31:23
    and we can definitely highlight it.
  • 00:31:27
    Our proposal requirement is not required.
  • 00:31:30
    We will not require in this proposal to have
  • 00:31:34
    reforming provide a break start support.
  • 00:31:38
    Thank you.
  • 00:31:47
    Thanks Fred. I want to go back to Bob
  • 00:31:51
    first. Sorry Julia, but Bob, did you hear Bill's
  • 00:31:56
    earlier question? No, I didn't.
  • 00:32:00
    If you repeat it and then I was going to comment on what Freddy's what
  • 00:32:03
    Fred said. Okay. Bill, did you want to repeat your question?
  • 00:32:08
    Yeah, sure. Bob, I was wondering if the NPRR that you are drafting is
  • 00:32:12
    intended to be an alternative to this to replace it
  • 00:32:16
    or something else? No, it would be what it would do
  • 00:32:19
    is it would change. It would. It would likely get
  • 00:32:23
    rid of the need for the NOGRR but it would not get rid of the
  • 00:32:27
    need for the PGRR on the technical requirements.
  • 00:32:31
    So does that help?
  • 00:32:35
    Yeah. So how would it do that? It would instead of being some type of
  • 00:32:38
    compliance requirement it would be a New paid product. Yeah, it'd be,
  • 00:32:42
    it'd be a, an ancillary service. And then the technical
  • 00:32:45
    requirements that you would need to meet to be able to supply that would be
  • 00:32:49
    in the PGRR.
  • 00:32:52
    Okay, okay, now on. I understand
  • 00:32:56
    what Fred is talking about, but I do
  • 00:33:00
    question one thing, Fred. I mean,
  • 00:33:03
    if you make this an ancillary service because there is a need
  • 00:33:07
    out there, you could in the PGRR put
  • 00:33:11
    in any requirement you wanted, whether they would be software changes
  • 00:33:15
    only or some hardware changes in there that you would feel would
  • 00:33:19
    work for the system in a positive manner.
  • 00:33:23
    And then it being a service, those that wanted to
  • 00:33:27
    supply it would get under that and do make those changes that were necessary
  • 00:33:31
    to even give more grid security than what you're
  • 00:33:34
    kind of mandating out here right now. So I think that's the
  • 00:33:37
    potential of changing this to an ancillary service is you
  • 00:33:41
    figure out what you want and put it out there and see,
  • 00:33:45
    you know, if you, if you put it out there, they will come. And so
  • 00:33:50
    that's kind of what I was thinking about in this process also.
  • 00:33:57
    Thanks, Bob. Okay, Julia's the last one
  • 00:34:01
    in the queue. Go ahead, Julia.
  • 00:34:05
    Yeah, I just wanted to iterate maybe like
  • 00:34:09
    a little bit on what Fred said and kind
  • 00:34:12
    of bring international perspective to that as well.
  • 00:34:15
    So the way the requirements are defined is
  • 00:34:19
    kind of normal way people do it today is
  • 00:34:23
    because this is kind of different control strategy,
  • 00:34:26
    but you don't want to be extremely prescriptive
  • 00:34:30
    as to how people should do it. So the way it's
  • 00:34:34
    been done in Australia defined in Finland,
  • 00:34:37
    national grid in Great Britain, basically everyone is doing
  • 00:34:41
    Hawaii. Somebody mentioned Hawaii here too. Everybody's doing
  • 00:34:44
    it the same way is where you ask for this advanced
  • 00:34:48
    grid support capability or call it grid forming capability
  • 00:34:51
    and then it comes with the set of tests that
  • 00:34:55
    are applied to models. And in those tests there
  • 00:34:58
    is a description of what constitutes pass or fail.
  • 00:35:02
    And so this set of tests, as Fred mentioned, was presented
  • 00:35:06
    in August, IBRWG. There is a report posted on
  • 00:35:10
    IBRWG webpage meeting webpage
  • 00:35:14
    with all of this test and pass fail criteria. My understanding
  • 00:35:18
    is as the follow up to this NOGRR and PGRR, this test
  • 00:35:21
    will be integrated into DWG manual as
  • 00:35:25
    the next step. So it's kind of similar to what we've done with NOGRR245
  • 00:35:29
    is when NOGRR was already kind of reaching close
  • 00:35:34
    to approval stages. Then DWG was updated, manual was updated
  • 00:35:38
    with the tests of what it actually means.
  • 00:35:41
    And so the same thing will happen here, but the tests are
  • 00:35:45
    already published in this report
  • 00:35:48
    that got produced. And so everybody is
  • 00:35:51
    doing it that same way. There is no really very
  • 00:35:56
    specific way to tell what grid forming should do
  • 00:36:00
    without prescribing specific controls. And we
  • 00:36:04
    don't want to do that because the pool of OEMs
  • 00:36:07
    that can do grid forming is still relatively small. It's maybe 5,
  • 00:36:11
    7 OEMs that do offer this. They all do it in
  • 00:36:15
    different ways so they achieve the same performance.
  • 00:36:18
    But controls how they do it is different. And so by being prescriptive
  • 00:36:23
    we may be narrowing it too much.
  • 00:36:27
    Yeah. And to what Bob said there
  • 00:36:31
    may be two pathways to this. And as
  • 00:36:34
    Fred said, there is a lower hanging fruit of achieving
  • 00:36:38
    this with batteries specifically for solar.
  • 00:36:42
    You would need to back solar down to provide this capability
  • 00:36:46
    because it needs energy buffer.
  • 00:36:49
    For wind it's even more complicated because it has mechanical
  • 00:36:53
    parts, rotating parts behind inverter. So applying this
  • 00:36:57
    to wind it's even more complicated, more costly.
  • 00:37:01
    From what we heard at IBRWG, if there is no extra
  • 00:37:05
    hardware requirement to provide extra short circuit current or
  • 00:37:08
    extra inertia or blackstar capability,
  • 00:37:12
    it's just software changes. It doesn't have much
  • 00:37:16
    of an extra cost. We didn't like nobody brought numbers.
  • 00:37:19
    Everyone is saying it's like signal digit percent maybe cost
  • 00:37:23
    difference, maybe there is no cost difference. Depending who you talk to,
  • 00:37:26
    you hear different things. So I wanted to urge
  • 00:37:29
    people as they talk to the OEMs actually get to the bottom of it,
  • 00:37:32
    of what it costs. If you are saying that it costs something and
  • 00:37:36
    then anything additional. As Bob
  • 00:37:39
    said, if ERCOT feels later on down the road that this
  • 00:37:43
    is needed then this can be implemented as a
  • 00:37:46
    mark and specific requirements for specific quantities can be
  • 00:37:50
    put out and paid for.
  • 00:37:54
    So I have.
  • 00:37:58
    Thanks Julia, thanks for the background.
  • 00:38:01
    We've got a new queue forming and
  • 00:38:05
    just to remind folks we are trying to get to a point that we refer
  • 00:38:07
    this over to some working groups to have these more detailed discussions.
  • 00:38:11
    So Fred, did you want to respond?
  • 00:38:15
    I think I just want to probably
  • 00:38:19
    maybe back to Bob and Catherine.
  • 00:38:23
    When you try to think about the different way to such
  • 00:38:27
    as market based way it will be helpful
  • 00:38:32
    in that type of consideration.
  • 00:38:36
    How to measure the need, how to quantify
  • 00:38:40
    and how much you buy. I think Lowe's will be helpful if
  • 00:38:44
    you can also share in a
  • 00:38:48
    little bit. Consider there are some other existing.
  • 00:38:53
    Yeah, so just kind of want to highlight that one.
  • 00:38:56
    But I understand we have more opportunity for further discussion later.
  • 00:39:01
    Thank you for all the comments. Thanks Fred.
  • 00:39:04
    I think that makes sense. Okay, let's see
  • 00:39:07
    Caitlin.
  • 00:39:11
    Thanks, Katie. And thanks, Fred.
  • 00:39:15
    That's a good point that we think about. Somebody pointed out to
  • 00:39:18
    me offline that we do sometimes use RUC for stability
  • 00:39:22
    purposes. So I think we could look at the amount that's being
  • 00:39:25
    used and then the additional things
  • 00:39:29
    we would want to see from a service like that,
  • 00:39:33
    I think, and this will be my last comment, I promise, but I
  • 00:39:36
    think we're getting into this cycle because I
  • 00:39:42
    think by mandating this you need
  • 00:39:45
    to get into specifics. I understand what Julia is saying,
  • 00:39:49
    but my understanding is in those other countries
  • 00:39:54
    this is a voluntary paid for service, like a stability
  • 00:39:58
    service. And so I think that makes sense. If you're
  • 00:40:02
    going out to market to see who can provide a service,
  • 00:40:05
    that it be a little bit more vague and then you figure
  • 00:40:09
    it out in testing requirements. Right, we do that now.
  • 00:40:13
    We test our ancillary services and that's where you really see
  • 00:40:16
    all the detailed work. And so
  • 00:40:20
    I think it gets a little bit more difficult here
  • 00:40:24
    because we as an owner want to
  • 00:40:27
    make sure, we are an operator want to make sure we can comply
  • 00:40:31
    with this. So also in response to Fred's comments that they don't
  • 00:40:34
    envision a hardware upgrade if we don't meet the performance
  • 00:40:38
    standards in the NOGRR, we can't go to the
  • 00:40:42
    ERM and say, well, ERCOT didn't envision a hardware upgrade,
  • 00:40:46
    so we stopped there and didn't meet
  • 00:40:50
    the performance requirements. So I think that's where this gets pretty
  • 00:40:53
    tricky and I'll leave it at that.
  • 00:41:03
    Thanks, Caitlin. All right, we're back to Bob.
  • 00:41:06
    Yeah, just one quick. And I like Caitlin, this will be my
  • 00:41:10
    last comment is something Julia said. She was talking about, you know,
  • 00:41:13
    the difference between solar and ESRs, where solar would have
  • 00:41:17
    to back down. That reminded me of something that's in
  • 00:41:21
    the paper that came out of the IBR working group. It said the reason that
  • 00:41:25
    storage doesn't have to back down is because they don't operate all the way
  • 00:41:29
    at the top. And that is true, but there are technical
  • 00:41:32
    and operational issues of why we do that. So you are
  • 00:41:35
    asking us to go outside of our normal operations,
  • 00:41:39
    potentially to supply this. So I just wanted to bring that up.
  • 00:41:49
    Yeah, thanks for the clarification,
  • 00:41:52
    Floyd. Yeah, thanks.
  • 00:41:55
    Maybe I misunderstood, but someone was talking
  • 00:42:00
    about creating a new ancillary
  • 00:42:03
    service. And if that is what you're
  • 00:42:07
    doing, would that not have to be presented
  • 00:42:11
    in an NPRR for a protocol change where
  • 00:42:15
    all the ancillaries are defined?
  • 00:42:18
    Yeah, that's exactly right. That's What Bob was saying
  • 00:42:22
    that he is working on right now.
  • 00:42:25
    Yeah, I misunderstood. It sounded like he was only
  • 00:42:28
    talking about NOGRRs and planning guides.
  • 00:42:33
    So I hope maybe
  • 00:42:37
    I misunderstood what he was saying. Yeah.
  • 00:42:40
    So he's looking at an NPRR that would be a replacement to the
  • 00:42:44
    NOGRR, but the PGRR would still have all the specifications in
  • 00:42:47
    it for the service. Remember,
  • 00:42:50
    in section 8 of the protocols is where performance
  • 00:42:54
    requirements are specified.
  • 00:43:00
    So what we don't want to do is mix them all up in different places
  • 00:43:04
    in different documents if it's a new ancillary.
  • 00:43:11
    Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Floyd.
  • 00:43:16
    Okay with that. I appreciate all the discussion
  • 00:43:20
    today. And I'll go back to what we talked about
  • 00:43:24
    doing originally, which is to table and
  • 00:43:28
    refer. Going to go ahead and put the PGRR together because we did
  • Item 5.3 - PGRR121, Related to NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
    00:43:32
    talk about it as well. So
  • 00:43:35
    NOGRR272 and PGRR121,
  • 00:43:39
    send those over to DWG and IBRWG
  • 00:43:45
    and if no one is opposed to adding these to the combo ballot,
  • 00:43:48
    that's what we'll propose to do.
  • 00:43:52
    All right, that looks right to me, Erin. Thank you.
  • Item 5.4 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load
    00:44:07
    All right, and that will take us on to
  • 00:44:11
    PGRR122 reliability performance criteria for
  • 00:44:16
    loss of load. This is
  • 00:44:21
    kind of a follow on to NPRR1234
  • 00:44:25
    and PGRR115 dealing with large
  • 00:44:29
    loads and now putting in sort
  • 00:44:33
    of this performance criteria with a 1000 megawatt
  • 00:44:37
    limit for any large loads.
  • 00:44:42
    Is someone, does someone from ERCOT want to speak to this?
  • 00:44:45
    Hey Katie, this is Jeff Billo. I can talk to this one.
  • 00:44:50
    So on this one,
  • 00:44:54
    as many of you know, we're seeing an increasing number of
  • 00:44:58
    really large loads that are connecting to our system or
  • 00:45:02
    at least requesting to connect to the system. And we know from
  • 00:45:07
    the Southern Cross studies that we did that
  • 00:45:12
    under certain conditions, if you lose too
  • 00:45:16
    much demand on your system, on the ERCOT system,
  • 00:45:20
    then it will cause frequency to spike such
  • 00:45:24
    that the generators on the system will
  • 00:45:28
    trip on over frequency, which will lead to
  • 00:45:31
    a frequency instability condition.
  • 00:45:36
    So obviously that's a bad thing. So based
  • 00:45:39
    on that we decided to
  • 00:45:43
    put this figure out that
  • 00:45:47
    essentially would create the requirement that if
  • 00:45:52
    we identified in studies, either in the interconnection
  • 00:45:55
    studies of large loads or the regular
  • 00:45:59
    planning studies, if we identified a condition where we lost
  • 00:46:03
    more than 1,000 megawatts for any single contingency,
  • 00:46:07
    then we would need to do system upgrades
  • 00:46:12
    which would likely be like a synchronous condenser
  • 00:46:16
    or grid forming statcom or something like that
  • 00:46:19
    to try to support the system. So that you're not losing that
  • 00:46:23
    much. And really the condition is either you have a single load or you
  • 00:46:26
    may have multiple load, large loads in a single area that would
  • 00:46:30
    see the voltage depression under a fault. So that's
  • 00:46:33
    the intention here. I think DWG
  • 00:46:38
    has proactively, I think they're taking it up
  • 00:46:41
    at their next meeting, which I think is next week.
  • 00:46:45
    And I think that we would probably expect
  • 00:46:48
    that we probably want to talk about this at PLWG.
  • 00:46:52
    So with that I'm happy to answer any questions.
  • 00:46:57
    Thanks, Jeff. Yeah, that was my thought was to
  • 00:47:01
    table and refer this over to DWG and PLWG and
  • 00:47:06
    just wanted to make sure everybody else was okay with
  • 00:47:09
    that.
  • 00:47:22
    Looks like Brian has a question in the chat. Chat for you,
  • 00:47:26
    Jeff. Can you describe what you mean by multiple loads in
  • 00:47:29
    an area? Yeah, so, so again,
  • 00:47:33
    what, what we're looking at is the potential for loss
  • 00:47:37
    of a lot of loads on the system.
  • 00:47:41
    And you know, it could be that you have a single
  • 00:47:45
    1000 megawatt load that you,
  • 00:47:48
    you would have, you know, maybe a fault at the substation and it, it trips
  • 00:47:52
    that load off. You could also have a situation
  • 00:47:55
    where maybe you have maybe two 500
  • 00:47:59
    megawatt loads in an area or
  • 00:48:03
    bigger than that. You could have two 600 megawatt loads where
  • 00:48:07
    if they're nearby, if you have a fault in the area, then your
  • 00:48:11
    voltage depression is going to be such that
  • 00:48:14
    if they don't have voltage right through capability then they're going
  • 00:48:18
    to drip and so you could have that. That situation also
  • 00:48:22
    cause frequency instability.
  • 00:48:30
    Thanks, Jeff. Yeah, and just a reference for that.
  • 00:48:34
    So I think we have been talking about this
  • 00:48:38
    voltage right through issue with the large loads and some
  • 00:48:42
    actual events that we've seen at both OWG
  • 00:48:46
    and PDC. And so I think that on
  • 00:48:50
    some of their meetings that somebody from ERCOT or one
  • 00:48:53
    of those working groups can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that we've
  • 00:48:56
    posted presentations at least at the.
  • 00:48:59
    I think it was the last OWG meeting where we had a
  • 00:49:03
    discussion about this.
  • 00:49:07
    I think it was also at PDCWG as well. I remember
  • 00:49:10
    two working groups discussing it. Okay, we've had
  • 00:49:14
    a couple folks jump in the queue.
  • 00:49:19
    Oh, thanks, Nitika. So you all can find
  • 00:49:23
    that presentation linked in the chat from Nitika.
  • 00:49:26
    Yep, PDC. Okay, thank you for confirming. I misremember.
  • 00:49:30
    All right, so we've got Chase and then Brett.
  • 00:49:37
    Thank you. Katie, can you confirm you can hear me?
  • 00:49:42
    We can't. Go ahead. Thank you.
  • 00:49:46
    Thanks, Jeff. This is, this is Jason with Southern Power can you you
  • 00:49:50
    kind of further explain just how UR is thinking about
  • 00:49:56
    the situation that I was reading in the kind of justification
  • 00:50:00
    that, you know, ERCOT has seen some interconnection load requests
  • 00:50:04
    that are bigger than one gigawatt and then you know I'm seeing
  • 00:50:08
    some of the language that for these contingency
  • 00:50:12
    events, you know, you want to limit where the total load loss shall be less
  • 00:50:15
    than 1 gigawatt. So like how can you just help explain I'm trying
  • 00:50:19
    to understand what does that mean if you have a new load that's proposing
  • 00:50:23
    to interconnect and it's greater than 1 gigawatt,
  • 00:50:26
    is that allowed? Is it just potentially mitigating actions that need
  • 00:50:30
    to be, you know, you know,
  • 00:50:33
    equipment or similar other mitigating actions to,
  • 00:50:37
    you know, reduce the risk of load loss. I'm just
  • 00:50:41
    trying to understand how to square that away if you have
  • 00:50:45
    a load project that just in itself is greater
  • 00:50:48
    than the 1 gigawatt threshold that's described in the figure.
  • 00:50:53
    Yeah, thanks Jay. So if you look at so
  • 00:50:57
    this is somewhat addressed in I think it's PGRR115 it's the
  • 00:51:01
    bigger that goes with NPRR1234 we
  • 00:51:06
    filed comments in there that if
  • 00:51:10
    you have a load that is larger than
  • 00:51:14
    1 GW then you would need to
  • 00:51:18
    the way that that would need to be connected would be you
  • 00:51:22
    couldn't just have a single point of interconnection for all.
  • 00:51:26
    So if you had the 2 gigawatt load as an example, you can't just have
  • 00:51:29
    a single point of interconnection for that entire 2 gigawatts that
  • 00:51:33
    would need to be split into multiple interconnections.
  • 00:51:38
    And again the same idea is that you wouldn't wouldn't want to
  • 00:51:41
    have more than 1,000 megawatts of
  • 00:51:46
    load loss for any single event. So whether that's
  • 00:51:49
    you lose the the POI connection or
  • 00:51:53
    if you had a fault on the system and you had a ride
  • 00:51:57
    through event, the system can't handle
  • 00:52:01
    more than, you know, losing more than that amount for any single
  • 00:52:04
    event.
  • 00:52:11
    Okay, thank you Jeff, that's helpful. And I hadn't
  • 00:52:14
    quite made that connection with NPRR1234 so thank you
  • 00:52:18
    for clarifying.
  • 00:52:22
    All right, let's take it to Brett and then on to
  • 00:52:26
    Shane. Thank you. I had a similar question
  • 00:52:31
    just on why 1 gigawatt so I really appreciate the
  • 00:52:34
    explanation Jeff.
  • 00:52:38
    Sure. Thanks Brett. Shane all
  • 00:52:43
    right. Yeah, thank you Shane Thomas Michelle had a
  • 00:52:46
    couple questions. One is the is around the
  • 00:52:50
    multiple load scenarios and
  • 00:52:54
    is that so the will the earnest be on the second
  • 00:52:57
    load, I guess, you know, as their loads are building up in an area.
  • 00:53:00
    We would see the study that there's already a 600 megawatt load, someone's requesting
  • 00:53:03
    another 600. And we would, the new load would be
  • 00:53:07
    potentially limited to 400 megawatts or no,
  • 00:53:10
    399 or whatever to keep them below a thousand total
  • 00:53:14
    for this, you know, radial line or whatever we're
  • 00:53:18
    talking about here. Yeah. SHANE so I think for
  • 00:53:22
    that scenario, I think there are a couple of options. So let's
  • 00:53:26
    say you had, if I understood your scenario correctly,
  • 00:53:30
    you had 600 megawatts in an area and
  • 00:53:33
    then you had another 600 megawatt load that wanted to connect in
  • 00:53:37
    that same area. And let's say neither of them were able to
  • 00:53:41
    ride through a voltage depression.
  • 00:53:44
    I think, you know, one option would be that
  • 00:53:48
    that second load would need to be able to
  • 00:53:52
    ride through, you know, that they would have to do whatever they
  • 00:53:55
    need to do on the load side to be able to ride through a voltage
  • 00:53:59
    depression. Another option would be, you know,
  • 00:54:03
    if they're far enough apart, then maybe you could put in a,
  • 00:54:08
    you know, a synchronous condenser or, you know, something like that to strengthen the
  • 00:54:11
    system so that both facilities at
  • 00:54:15
    the same time wouldn't see such a voltage depression for a fault.
  • 00:54:20
    And then, you know, another option would be you could,
  • 00:54:24
    you know, just limit that facility, that second facility to 400
  • 00:54:27
    megawatts. But I think those are all potential options
  • 00:54:31
    for that scenario. But I think we're trying not to be
  • 00:54:35
    that prescriptive here. We're just trying to identify this
  • 00:54:40
    is the system limit, this is how much the ERCOT system
  • 00:54:44
    can handle and kind
  • 00:54:48
    of leave the door open for whatever options may
  • 00:54:51
    solve the identified issues. Okay, yeah,
  • 00:54:55
    thank you. I mean, I appreciate y'all too, being super open to
  • 00:54:58
    creative solutions around this and not just blanketing
  • 00:55:02
    a 1000 megawatt cap out there.
  • 00:55:06
    Another question then is on, I guess, for these studies, are we
  • 00:55:10
    looking for, is everything going to be based on
  • 00:55:13
    the requested interconnection amount? So, you know, loads that
  • 00:55:17
    maybe have requested for a thousand megawatts,
  • 00:55:20
    but after four years you're sitting at 200
  • 00:55:24
    still, or how is there any kind of thought to how that
  • 00:55:27
    gets handled? Or is it, are they just get those thousand megawatts
  • 00:55:31
    for the lifetime of their project or, you know.
  • 00:55:37
    Yeah, yeah. Honestly, I haven't thought that
  • 00:55:40
    closely about that. That's a good thing to think about.
  • 00:55:43
    SHANE Just off the top of my head, I think it
  • 00:55:46
    would be whatever it depends what the
  • 00:55:50
    study you're looking at. Right. If you're looking at an interconnection study and I'm
  • 00:55:53
    assuming that the TOs are going to study whatever the requested
  • 00:55:58
    amount is, but I think going forward if they request a thousand,
  • 00:56:02
    but maybe they only sign an agreement for say 500,
  • 00:56:05
    I think in your planning studies you would just use, you know,
  • 00:56:09
    your annual planning studies, you would just use whatever they have signed
  • 00:56:12
    in their agreement.
  • 00:56:15
    Okay, yeah, that'd be, I guess that can be handled. Part is like
  • 00:56:19
    keeping those numbers updated in the large
  • 00:56:23
    load process and things like that or when we're updating numbers annually,
  • 00:56:29
    something like that. But looking forward to continuous
  • 00:56:33
    discussion in the other other forums.
  • 00:56:36
    Thank you. Thanks,
  • 00:56:39
    Shane.
  • 00:56:43
    Yeah, that's a good point, Bill.
  • 00:56:47
    Yeah, I think there has been some discussion under NPRR1234 about this
  • 00:56:50
    as well. Bill, do you have a question?
  • 00:56:54
    Yeah, Jeff, Is this requirement specific to
  • 00:56:58
    standalone large loads and
  • 00:57:02
    not co located large loads?
  • 00:57:08
    I think it is not
  • 00:57:14
    a requirement on the load. It's a system requirement.
  • 00:57:19
    Right. So it is. You couldn't.
  • 00:57:23
    The system can't handle more than
  • 00:57:27
    1,000 megawatt load loss. And so it's really
  • 00:57:31
    whether you identify that and like I said your interconnection study
  • 00:57:34
    or your annual
  • 00:57:39
    planning studies or any other planning study,
  • 00:57:45
    it's really a system requirement. So just
  • 00:57:50
    thinking out loud through that scenario, if you had a co located,
  • 00:57:54
    if you had something more than 1,000 megawatts co located
  • 00:57:58
    with a generator, if it's possible
  • 00:58:01
    to lose that load by itself without
  • 00:58:05
    losing the generator, then I would say that that
  • 00:58:09
    would be a bad thing. Right. You wouldn't want a 2000 megawatt load
  • 00:58:13
    drop just because it's located next to
  • 00:58:17
    a generator. The system is going to see that frequency spike
  • 00:58:21
    regardless. Right. So I think we would look at it more
  • 00:58:25
    from that perspective. So a 1500 megawatt load
  • 00:58:29
    behind a thousand megawatt thermal plant would not raise
  • 00:58:33
    a concern for ERCOT because the system only sees a 500 megawatt drop?
  • 00:58:37
    Well, I think it depends if that load.
  • 00:58:41
    If you could drop that 1500 megawatt load and
  • 00:58:45
    that thousand megawatt generator would still be there. I think
  • 00:58:49
    that would be a concern. Right. Because the system is going to see that frequency
  • 00:58:52
    see spike. The system is going to see the 1500 in
  • 00:58:56
    the, in a different direction though. It's a, that's a different.
  • 00:58:59
    Right. That is. That doesn't look like that's what you're trying to address here.
  • 00:59:03
    Or is it. That's the question is.
  • 00:59:06
    Yeah, it's it's from a. What is the system going
  • 00:59:10
    to see? So, so if you had a contingency where the
  • 00:59:13
    system is going to see 1500 to, even if it's behind the fence,
  • 00:59:18
    if you lost 1500 megawatts,
  • 00:59:21
    if you lost the load but did not lose the generator,
  • 00:59:25
    then that would be bad for the system.
  • 00:59:30
    Okay,
  • 00:59:37
    thanks Jeff. One more in the queue and then we'll work on
  • 00:59:40
    doing our referral. Andy, you've got the last question.
  • 00:59:44
    Yeah, thanks. Katie, can you hear me?
  • 00:59:49
    I can hear you, go ahead. Okay, thanks. Yeah, wanted to
  • 00:59:52
    follow and unpack the thread on Jeff and Bill's conversation.
  • 00:59:56
    In that scenario, Jeff, if the load were to
  • 01:00:00
    trip offline, but then the generator had special
  • 01:00:04
    relays that also tripped such that the net
  • 01:00:08
    impact to the grid was below that thousand megawatts,
  • 01:00:12
    would that be acceptable to ERCOT? So in Bill's example
  • 01:00:17
    you had a 1500 megawatt load that tripped,
  • 01:00:21
    but then you would subsequently also trip the generator in such a way where
  • 01:00:26
    the impact was less than a thousand. Could you help? Has ERCOT
  • 01:00:30
    thought about that type of configuration and the risk?
  • 01:00:35
    Yeah, so I,
  • 01:00:39
    I think potentially I, I think that we would,
  • 01:00:45
    you know, I think we'd have to look at the specifics of that, that situation.
  • 01:00:49
    And, and also, you know,
  • 01:00:52
    also, you know, is that a RAS or,
  • 01:00:56
    you know, is it more kind of inherent in the design?
  • 01:01:00
    I, I think we'd have to of look at that if it's a RAS,
  • 01:01:05
    you know, I think that that could be problematic from. I think NERC
  • 01:01:09
    wouldn't let us have a RAS that,
  • 01:01:13
    you know, if it misoperated, could cause a stability issue.
  • 01:01:17
    But yeah, I think, you know, that that kind of situation
  • 01:01:21
    I think we'd have to look at on a case by case basis.
  • 01:01:26
    Yeah, that makes sense to me Jeff. I just want to make sure. And then,
  • 01:01:29
    and as we think through this and as it gets referred,
  • 01:01:33
    you know, those are the type of things that if could be
  • 01:01:36
    configured correctly, could actually help ERCOT because it
  • 01:01:41
    helps to avoid these type of situations where you could have
  • 01:01:44
    some voltage instability in tripping scenarios. So appreciate
  • 01:01:48
    the time. Thanks Kevin. Thanks,
  • 01:01:51
    Andy. Kevin?
  • 01:01:54
    Yeah Jeff, quick question. Are you guys talking to other ISOs as
  • 01:01:58
    well? Cause I believe I thought I saw Entergy is looking to add 4 gigawatt
  • 01:02:03
    data storage site on their side. So I'm assuming myself looking at as well.
  • 01:02:12
    Sorry Kevin, I didn't catch all of that. Can you repeat that? Yeah, yeah.
  • 01:02:15
    My comment is are you talking to the other ISOs in sync? You're talking
  • 01:02:18
    part of NERC. So I'm assuming all the ISOs are going to be under the
  • 01:02:21
    same rules and requirements. And I believe I just saw
  • 01:02:25
    recently that Entergy is looking. They're looking to have a potential
  • 01:02:29
    new 4 gigawatt new data center load over there that
  • 01:02:34
    I understand we're talking 2 to 4 gigawatts over here. I'm just wondering if you
  • 01:02:37
    reach out to other ISOs and having conversations about how
  • 01:02:41
    they're dealing with it on their side as well. Yeah,
  • 01:02:44
    so yes, we are talking to
  • 01:02:48
    other ISOs, both in the United States
  • 01:02:52
    as well as globally.
  • 01:02:56
    I think we're also. There's a NERC task force, there's an ESIG task
  • 01:02:59
    force, so we're involved with all of that.
  • 01:03:02
    I think within the U.S. what makes us a little unique
  • 01:03:05
    is the size of our system. You know,
  • 01:03:09
    it may be that the Eastern interconnect,
  • 01:03:12
    because it's a larger system, can withstand larger load loss,
  • 01:03:16
    same with the West. So that, that may not
  • 01:03:19
    be as applicable. But you know, some of the
  • 01:03:23
    other countries that we've talked to that, you know,
  • 01:03:26
    have smaller systems, I think they're looking at something similar.
  • 01:03:32
    Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate it.
  • 01:03:35
    Thanks, Jeff. That's a good point. Okay,
  • 01:03:39
    so that's everybody in the queue. So. So let's go back to what we
  • 01:03:42
    originally talked about. So we talked about sending
  • 01:03:48
    this over to PLWG and
  • 01:03:51
    DWG for more discussion.
  • 01:03:55
    So I didn't hear anyone with concerns about
  • 01:03:59
    that. So I think we can add that to the combo ballot.
  • 01:04:02
    Erin?
  • 01:04:10
    Perfect. All right, thank you for that.
  • Item 6 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Katie Rich
    01:04:24
    That takes us on to NPRR1257.
  • Item 6.1 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
    01:04:29
    So this is the limit on responsive
  • 01:04:32
    reserve as a resource. So there
  • 01:04:36
    was a study done on this and
  • 01:04:39
    ERCOT came back with this initial
  • 01:04:43
    limit of 156 megawatts. I know that
  • 01:04:46
    this was discussed at PDCWG.
  • 01:04:49
    I know that Jupiter Power had some initial concerns.
  • 01:04:53
    And Caitlin, I believe that
  • 01:04:56
    you're now coming back and saying that you're more comfortable with this.
  • 01:05:01
    And so did you want to add anything or Kevin,
  • 01:05:05
    did you want to add anything from a PDC perspective or did
  • 01:05:08
    you want to talk about that when we get to you? Caitlin,
  • 01:05:12
    go ahead. Thanks, Katie,
  • 01:05:16
    and thanks, Kevin, for letting me come to your PDC meeting
  • 01:05:19
    and derail it for a bit. We did have some concerns
  • 01:05:23
    that concern concerns were with regulatory
  • 01:05:26
    certainty because this is going to be changed in
  • 01:05:30
    the ancillary service methodology every year or potentially
  • 01:05:34
    changed. And so I did talk to Nitika
  • 01:05:39
    offline and alleviated those concerns. Just kind of the outlook
  • 01:05:43
    of what is going to be needed, inertia wise
  • 01:05:47
    and ancillary services. We don't see a big swing
  • 01:05:51
    happening, I think in the next five years or so. And so we
  • 01:05:55
    feel good about it. But the initial concern was if
  • 01:05:59
    the 157 megawatts were to go down to
  • 01:06:02
    95 megawatts or something that is
  • 01:06:06
    difficult for us to plan around.
  • 01:06:15
    That's all I got. Thanks,
  • 01:06:19
    Caitlin, Kevin. And from the PDC perspective, we didn't
  • 01:06:22
    really discuss it too much. We talked about it several months ago.
  • 01:06:26
    No one really had any comments since Caitlin
  • 01:06:30
    and ERCOT had already discussed it previously before the meeting occurred,
  • 01:06:34
    we really only brought it up. We gave people the opportunity to speak to it
  • 01:06:37
    they felt necessary. We moved past it under
  • 01:06:41
    five minutes.
  • 01:06:44
    And Kaylin, you're always welcome to interject into PDC.
  • 01:06:50
    That's great. And I heard that you're going to chair it next year.
  • 01:06:53
    So I'll come back. We'll discuss that later
  • 01:06:58
    in the meeting.
  • 01:07:02
    Yeah, I don't want to cause any conflicts. I heard something else that
  • 01:07:06
    people PDCWG, so I'll just be quiet,
  • 01:07:10
    though. So on this topic, that brings
  • 01:07:13
    us to the question of if PBCWG's
  • 01:07:17
    looked at it and they're
  • 01:07:23
    ready to advance it, is ROS ready
  • 01:07:27
    to move it forward as well, or do you feel like you
  • 01:07:30
    need any additional time to look at this?
  • 01:07:46
    Okay, so absence of comments, does that
  • 01:07:50
    mean that we could try to move this forward? If so,
  • 01:07:54
    I'd have Erin put something on the combo ballot approving
  • 01:07:58
    NPRR1257.
  • 01:08:01
    Okay, thanks, Erin. We'll leave that there,
  • 01:08:05
    see if anybody brings anything up as we look at the combo ballot
  • 01:08:09
    later.
  • Item 7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    01:08:17
    All right, so that takes us to 7
  • Item 7.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
    01:08:21
    and 8, which are tables. Items NPRR1229
  • 01:08:28
    looks to still be at WMS
  • Item 8 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    01:08:31
    having, you know, some discussion with ERCOT on those. And
  • Item 8.1 - PGRR073, Related to NPRR956, Designation of Providers of Transmission Additions
    01:08:36
    PGRR073 has been on here for quite a while,
  • 01:08:41
    so I think we'll just leave it where it is. And that will take
  • 01:08:44
    us into our working group updates and OWG
  • Item 9 - Operations Working Group - OWG - Rickey Floyd
    01:08:49
    is first up. So, Ricky, were you going to give
  • 01:08:52
    that update? Good morning, this is Tyler. Can you hear me?
  • 01:08:58
    We can go ahead. Okay, perfect.
  • 01:09:01
    We can go ahead and go to the next slide. Should be a pretty quick
  • Item 9.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG- Possible Vote
    01:09:05
    update. NPRR1070 remains
  • Item 9.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
    01:09:09
    tabled at OWG. NPRR1238
  • 01:09:14
    As of the last meeting,
  • 01:09:18
    we were still waiting on ERCOT to file their
  • 01:09:21
    comments. For ERCOT's comments at the meeting, they were
  • 01:09:25
    still under review.
  • Item 9.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
    01:09:30
    And then NOGRR265,
  • 01:09:34
    that would be the same. Still waiting on ERCOT's comments, so hoping
  • 01:09:38
    to have those for our next meeting.
  • 01:09:42
    I don't know if ERCOT can comment on that here if we'll have him for
  • 01:09:45
    the next meeting or not.
  • 01:09:58
    Freddy, can you address that or someone else from ERCOT.
  • 01:10:04
    Hi, this Fred. I think our SME
  • 01:10:08
    is not available today. I will take this one
  • 01:10:11
    back and provide a quick update back to you and OWG
  • 01:10:18
    chair. Thanks Jack,
  • 01:10:23
    will you do. Thank you. And then next slide
  • 01:10:26
    was just other business and we didn't discuss any other business at
  • 01:10:30
    the last meeting. So thanks everybody.
  • 01:10:39
    All right, thanks for your update.
  • 01:10:44
    That will take us down to PLWG.
  • 01:10:52
    Thanks Katie.
  • Item 10 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - Dylan Preas
    01:10:57
    Good morning ROS. This is Dylan Preas. I'm the PLWG
  • 01:11:01
    Chair. I'll be giving the report this
  • Item 10.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote
    01:11:04
    morning. So PLWG met on November 12th
  • 01:11:08
    where we discussed PGRR115 interconnection requirements
  • 01:11:11
    for large load and modeling standards for loads 25 megawatts or greater.
  • 01:11:16
    At the November 12th meeting, ERCOT reviewed
  • 01:11:21
    reply comments to the PGRR dated November
  • 01:11:24
    11th as well well as reply comments to the NPRR1234 also dated November 11th.
  • 01:11:29
    Discussion at the meeting included potential overlap of
  • 01:11:33
    PGRR115 with a new PGRR122 with questions
  • 01:11:36
    related to the 1000 megawatt total load loss limit
  • 01:11:40
    in PGRR122. So we've heard from Jeff on this
  • 01:11:43
    one and I do did catch the combo
  • 01:11:46
    ballot vote to take this one up at PLWG should that come our way.
  • 01:11:50
    We did. Table PGRR115 for further
  • 01:11:55
    discussion in December slide
  • Item 10.2 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG - Possible Vote
    01:11:58
    PGRR119 Stability constraints Modeling
  • 01:12:06
    assumptions in the regional transmission plan. So as a reminder,
  • 01:12:10
    in this one it was submitted by ERCOT and it formalizes the existing
  • 01:12:13
    practice in which ERCOT applies a reliability margin
  • 01:12:17
    for example 10% 2 stability constraints
  • 01:12:21
    when ERCOT models stability constraint in RTP
  • 01:12:24
    reliability in economic cases. At the
  • 01:12:28
    meeting we reviewed OPUC November 6th comments and
  • 01:12:31
    after discussion field PLWG reached consensus on the
  • 01:12:35
    original version of PGRR119 submitted by
  • 01:12:39
    ERCOT on September 12th. I'm sorry, September 9th.
  • 01:12:42
    Don't know if we need to have some discussion on
  • 01:12:49
    PGRR119. We do have PLWG consensus
  • 01:12:53
    for a vote. We did see comments come out from joint
  • 01:12:57
    commenters I guess.
  • 01:13:01
    Alex, maybe you in. Yeah, you.
  • 01:13:04
    Alex, maybe you in. Yeah, you.
  • 01:13:08
    You read my. Yeah, I was just. I was just going to note that
  • 01:13:13
    we did. Sorry for the timing issue.
  • 01:13:16
    We did try to try to indicate that we would be filing comments
  • 01:13:20
    but we did file a
  • 01:13:24
    set of comments with suggested edits and clarification
  • 01:13:28
    that helped with. We think some of the concerns that had
  • 01:13:31
    been brought up by the other commenters
  • 01:13:37
    and adding more clarity to the intention there. So we
  • 01:13:40
    would love for it to go back to PLWG if possible, but leave
  • 01:13:44
    it to the group so
  • 01:13:55
    PLWG can certainly take it back. So if
  • 01:13:58
    that's the will of ROS, then we'll add it back
  • 01:14:02
    to our agenda at our December 18th
  • 01:14:06
    meeting.
  • 01:14:10
    Am I hearing that the
  • 01:14:13
    will of ROS? Katie I'm
  • 01:14:17
    hearing silence, except from Alex. I'm fine
  • 01:14:21
    with that. I've had to send
  • 01:14:25
    things back in the past. So considering that you do have
  • 01:14:29
    another meeting and this month and we can
  • 01:14:32
    wrap it up by the end of the year, I think it wouldn't hurt to
  • 01:14:36
    have one more discussion, if you don't mind. Dylan. Okay,
  • 01:14:39
    so we'll take that one back and get it on our next Very
  • 01:14:46
    good. Appreciate that. Slide please.
  • Item 10.3 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection - PLWG - DWG - Possible Vote
    01:14:51
    PGRR120 SSO Prevention for Generator
  • 01:14:56
    Interconnection this was a new one at PLWG in November,
  • 01:14:59
    and as a reminder on this 1, PGRR120 will prohibit future
  • 01:15:03
    generation resources from interconnecting on a serious compensated
  • 01:15:07
    circuit such that an n minus one contingency event would
  • 01:15:11
    cause the generation to become radial to a series capacitor.
  • 01:15:15
    ERCOT presented the overview of the draft presentation
  • 01:15:19
    at PLWG. I think it was the same one that RA ROS saw at the
  • 01:15:23
    at the prior ROS meetings we had discussion
  • 01:15:26
    on this one related to the SSO study process, potential OEM
  • 01:15:30
    technology to mitigate effects of SSO and recent
  • 01:15:33
    SSO events impacting multiple generators were discussed
  • 01:15:37
    and PLWG would like to table this one pending
  • 01:15:41
    further discussion at the December meeting.
  • 01:15:48
    No questions on that one. Move on to the next slide.
  • 01:15:51
    So NERC Topics Roundtable is something we carry forward still hot topics
  • 01:15:55
    in Affecting Planners in the NERC arena or NERC
  • 01:15:58
    CIP-014-4, which is a new revision working
  • 01:16:02
    its way through the review process at the NERC
  • 01:16:06
    level as well as TPL-008-1
  • 01:16:10
    Transmission Planning Performance Requirements for extreme weather.
  • 01:16:14
    We we carry these round tables when we have time to discuss them.
  • 01:16:17
    Typically we've been pretty busy so we just we just flag the most recent information
  • 01:16:21
    on them at our meetings.
  • 01:16:28
    Next slide. We do have
  • 01:16:31
    one open action item that's a review of Load Capital
  • 01:16:34
    Capital L load in the Planning Guide. Revise as needed.
  • 01:16:38
    That is to align the terms load and
  • 01:16:42
    Big L load in the Planning Guide with
  • 01:16:46
    the defined term in protocol section 2.
  • 01:16:49
    Action item on this one is to take up one section of the Planning Guide
  • 01:16:53
    at each meeting. We'll start that at our Next meeting in
  • 01:16:56
    December. We're all still seeking a sponsor
  • 01:17:00
    to oversee the revision request. That's something we'll work through.
  • 01:17:04
    But we are working on this action item and
  • 01:17:12
    any questions for me?
  • 01:17:17
    I just wanted to say thank you. I know that you know your group in
  • 01:17:21
    particular has had a lot of work this year and you
  • 01:17:24
    really tremendously helped with NPRR1247. So thank you
  • 01:17:28
    for that. Thank you for taking PGRR119 back for
  • 01:17:32
    one more month and thank you for laying out a
  • 01:17:36
    plan to work on this open action item.
  • 01:17:39
    I appreciate that very much. So thank you for all that you did
  • 01:17:42
    this year. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
  • 01:17:47
    Thanks everyone.
  • Item 11 - Performance, Disturbance, Compliance Working Group - PDCWG - Kevin Bunch
    01:17:53
    Okay, let's see if we can keep rolling a little bit. Let's go to PDCWG.
  • 01:17:57
    Kevin, you're up. I hear you got nominated
  • 01:18:01
    for next year but we'll let you clarify what you meant.
  • 01:18:06
    Yeah, next slide. So we met last
  • 01:18:10
    month. You go to the next slide.
  • 01:18:14
    My presentation will be pretty short since but
  • 01:18:18
    we did discuss NPRR1257 pretty briefly the
  • 01:18:25
    load loss analysis. We went to some detail however
  • 01:18:30
    below TRE-2
  • 01:18:35
    but this is the load loss analysis One of the
  • 01:18:38
    paths I believe from 2020 to 2023 in
  • 01:18:43
    a large load there are
  • 01:18:46
    several of eight sequel events were
  • 01:18:54
    involved in the IBR generations and
  • 01:18:59
    all the events were identified by ERCOT operations in real time.
  • 01:19:03
    So they continue to monitor that before
  • 01:19:06
    they go for from here.
  • 01:19:12
    Sorry, this was it.
  • 01:19:16
    The ERCOT will be presenting next week.
  • 01:19:22
    Activate again. ERCOT will be presenting at OWG
  • 01:19:26
    and LFTF in the
  • 01:19:29
    next meeting. They'll be presenting the large loss analysis
  • 01:19:33
    there as well. If you have any questions
  • 01:19:37
    on the load loss analysis. Yeah,
  • 01:19:46
    I'm not seeing any there.
  • 01:19:50
    We had our typical frequency control metrics that's
  • 01:19:55
    present every single month. That's at the very bottom of this presentation you go through
  • 01:19:58
    there's
  • 01:20:02
    some reports so I don't go over that great detail
  • 01:20:06
    Tre get their typical updates and
  • 01:20:12
    the last thing I had on here is there's no FMEs
  • 01:20:16
    for this month.
  • 01:20:22
    Our IMFR is four times what
  • 01:20:25
    it needs to be. So we're doing fantastic there and
  • 01:20:29
    honestly the the best there.
  • 01:20:32
    The most important update I had for you from PDC was
  • 01:20:35
    despite rumors started earlier this meeting I will not be chairing
  • 01:20:39
    again next year. Chad has graciously
  • 01:20:43
    agreed to stay on in some form of leadership role.
  • 01:20:46
    So if you're interested in sharing or advice sharing PDCWG please
  • 01:20:51
    let me know any
  • 01:20:59
    questions. Thanks Kevin. It's always great when Caitlin comes
  • 01:21:02
    to our meeting and tries to Start trouble.
  • 01:21:05
    Yes, I have to do a TAC leadership request.
  • Item 11.1 - NOGRR271, Related to NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response - Possible Vote
    01:21:12
    Okay. The Other thing that Nitika reminded me of
  • 01:21:16
    is we added NPRR1257
  • 01:21:20
    to the combo ballot, which left
  • 01:21:23
    NOGRR271 right to be added as well.
  • 01:21:27
    So, Kevin, unless you have any opposition to that,
  • 01:21:30
    I think we'll go ahead and add that one as well. No, I believe they
  • 01:21:33
    go hand in hand. I don't think you have one without the other.
  • 01:21:38
    Okay, thank you. Thanks for your leadership this year.
  • 01:21:45
    All right, we got that added.
  • Item 12 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - Gerardo Escamilla
    01:21:48
    Okay, let's take it now to NDSWG.
  • 01:21:58
    Oops. Can I do.
  • 01:22:01
    Oh, can you hear me?
  • 01:22:07
    We can go ahead. Oh, my goodness. Okay, great,
  • Item 12.1 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG - Possible Vote
    01:22:11
    great. Thank you. Yes, good morning. I'm doing a
  • 01:22:14
    standard report. I know it says NPRR1234.
  • 01:22:20
    Can we go to the next slide, please?
  • 01:22:25
    So basically on our last meeting, November 19,
  • 01:22:28
    2024, we pretty much discussed
  • 01:22:32
    basically modeling top lines, but only we have
  • 01:22:35
    serious compensators. Who wanted to know? Well, I guess I'm jumping,
  • 01:22:39
    jumping the gun here. Well, I guess. Yeah.
  • 01:22:42
    Similarly, during pen lines and we're updating NMMS model breaker validation
  • 01:22:46
    rules, updating the NMMS CIM upgrade project, and then
  • 01:22:50
    of course the 2025 Share By Share nominations and other topics.
  • 01:22:53
    Next slide, please.
  • 01:22:57
    So, yes, right here is where I'm meant to be talking about this.
  • 01:23:01
    Sorry. The. The Marlin zero impedance lines
  • 01:23:04
    were. This is an effort that we're trying to do for
  • 01:23:09
    our EMS system to be matching the ERCOT main system.
  • 01:23:13
    And basically what we're just doing here is just seeing if
  • 01:23:17
    we can remove the existing series compensators model in the model
  • 01:23:21
    and just put zero impedance lines in between. Pretty much that's
  • 01:23:24
    the essence of this effort here for
  • 01:23:28
    the evaluation rules. That was something that ERCOT
  • 01:23:32
    is doing right now for assigning PSSEID
  • 01:23:35
    to the nodal breaker model.
  • 01:23:39
    And this is an effort that we are doing with
  • 01:23:43
    planning to make sure that we
  • 01:23:48
    agree on what the ID should be for devices like breakers,
  • 01:23:51
    lines, substations and shunts and loads and all
  • 01:23:55
    that. Next page,
  • 01:23:58
    please. Next slide. I'm sorry.
  • 01:24:04
    And then of course, the update to the NMMS and SIM upgrade project
  • 01:24:08
    and the go live is first quarter of 2027.
  • 01:24:11
    CIM model will be available in
  • 01:24:14
    the full redacted model. And this is for, I guess,
  • 01:24:18
    importing models into our EMS to make it
  • 01:24:22
    equivalent to the MAGE model.
  • 01:24:26
    Then we're going to the vice chair and sharing vice chair nominations.
  • 01:24:29
    We have stepping out from vice chair position to
  • 01:24:33
    share Phil Hoffer from AEP and Teddi Flessner
  • 01:24:38
    for vice chair from STEC. The other
  • 01:24:41
    topics and this is something we're going to be dedicating our
  • 01:24:45
    next NDSWG meeting December 17th
  • 01:24:49
    to disclose the NPRR we
  • 01:24:54
    have we have talked a little about this
  • 01:24:58
    last couple of meetings and we are planning to dedicate and
  • 01:25:03
    hopefully our discussion
  • 01:25:06
    on this topic. Any questions?
  • 01:25:16
    Thank you for taking up NPRR1234. I know
  • 01:25:19
    ERCOT's very interested in trying to move it forward. So thank you
  • 01:25:23
    for having a meeting dedicated to that and trying to get
  • 01:25:27
    to some resolution. So thanks
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich
    01:25:31
    again. I think that will take us all to our combo ballot.
  • 01:25:34
    Erin, if you want to pull that up so we can have everyone take
  • 01:25:39
    a look at that before we do our vote.
  • 01:25:55
    So we have three items that would move forward as a result.
  • 01:25:59
    PGRR117 we approve that IA NPRR1257 and then the related NOGRR dealing with the RRS
  • 01:26:05
    limits and the others are
  • 01:26:09
    referrals to DWG, IBRWG and
  • 01:26:13
    PLWG. So if
  • 01:26:16
    everyone is OK with these, I'd be looking for a first and
  • 01:26:20
    a second before we're able to vote.
  • 01:26:24
    This is Cyrus Reid. Happy to make the motion.
  • 01:26:30
    Thank you, Cyrus. Anybody want to second it for him?
  • 01:26:33
    Alex all right, we'll credit you with the second.
  • 01:26:38
    Okay. Erin, I will turn it over to you.
  • 01:26:42
    Thank you. Katie so beginning with the consumers.
  • 01:26:52
    Cyrus yes.
  • 01:26:55
    Mike yes,
  • 01:26:59
    thank you. Mary Ellen for Nabaraj
  • 01:27:08
    yes, thank you.
  • 01:27:13
    Cooperatives Barry yes, thank you.
  • 01:27:16
    Sandeep yes, thank you.
  • 01:27:20
    Paul yes.
  • 01:27:24
    Chris yes.
  • 01:27:29
    Chris yes.
  • 01:27:34
    Independent generator Chase Yes.
  • 01:27:41
    Correct. Yes.
  • 01:27:44
    Alex yes.
  • 01:27:48
    Katie yes, thanks. Erin Independent
  • 01:27:54
    power marketers okay, quick call for
  • 01:27:58
    Ian. I don't believe he's with us. Ian,
  • 01:28:01
    are you on the phone?
  • 01:28:05
    Yeah, I don't think he's joined us today. I think he's
  • 01:28:09
    on vacation this week. Okay,
  • 01:28:12
    good to know. Thank you. Shane for Resme yes,
  • 01:28:17
    thank you. Adam. Yes.
  • 01:28:28
    Okay. Independent Rep. Kevin. Yes,
  • 01:28:33
    thanks. Chris for Jennifer Yes.
  • 01:28:38
    Chris. Yes, thanks.
  • 01:28:42
    Ming. Yes.
  • 01:28:47
    Investor owned utilities, Ether. Yes.
  • 01:28:53
    West yes. Thank you,
  • 01:28:58
    Chris.
  • 01:29:04
    Chris Garete,
  • 01:29:07
    can you hear me? I can,
  • 01:29:12
    yes. Thank you.
  • 01:29:15
    Matthew yes.
  • 01:29:21
    Municipals Kenneth yes.
  • 01:29:26
    Matt yes.
  • 01:29:33
    Imane. Imane
  • 01:29:47
    are you with us? I think you're on the phone.
  • 01:29:54
    Okay, I see your yes in the chat. Thank you.
  • 01:29:58
    Cody for Chris Yes.
  • 01:30:02
    Okay. The motion carries with all
  • 01:30:05
    in favor.
  • Item 10.4 - Break
    01:30:11
    Thank you, Erin okay, why don't we do this? Let's take
  • 01:30:14
    a quick little 10 minute break, then we'll finish
  • 01:30:19
    the working groups in our other business. So we'll come back
  • 01:30:22
    at 11:10. Thank you.
  • 01:30:55
    If you see it there, know that it is.
  • 01:35:16
    So add it to the love list. Did you know that this video of Dr.
  • 01:35:19
    Se is removed from the Internet for what he exposed about men's health?
  • 01:35:24
    Large company that sells blue pills. Don't want you to see this.
  • 01:35:29
    Just saw something on here that I think all the lady.
  • 01:35:34
    Texas. A federal court has just ruled the Corporate
  • 01:35:37
    Transparency act, the law that says you need to file a BOI
  • 01:35:40
    report to the federal government for llc. It's now a constitution
  • 01:35:44
    law is no longer the law of the land is ruled unconstitutional
  • 01:35:48
    and that applies to everyone. This case is different than the Alabama
  • 01:35:52
    case six months ago that said transparency act is unconstitutional.
  • 01:35:55
    But that case only applied to the whitest.
  • 01:35:58
    Funny.
  • 01:41:30
    All right, Everybody, it is 11:10. So let's come
  • 01:41:34
    back to our agenda.
  • 01:41:39
    Erin, if you want to pull that up, I believe that takes us
  • 01:41:42
    to the voltage profile
  • 01:41:46
    working group.
  • 01:41:54
    There we go. Thank you so much. Can you all hear me?
  • 01:41:59
    You're a little faint on my end.
  • 01:42:02
    All right. I try to get closer. Is this any better?
  • Item 14 - Voltage Profile Working Group - VPWG - Maribel Khayat
    01:42:05
    Yeah, go ahead. All right, I have a short update.
  • 01:42:09
    We held a meeting this past November.
  • 01:42:12
    Can we go to the next slide? We did not have any voting items
  • 01:42:16
    in the agenda. We did issue updated
  • 01:42:20
    winter spring voltage profile that has been official since
  • 01:42:24
    December 1st. We received a market notice on that.
  • 01:42:27
    We did not have a generator report performance report for
  • 01:42:31
    this month. We did
  • 01:42:34
    initiate a VPWG procedure manual before finalizing before the
  • 01:42:38
    end of the year. We had a few discussions on IBR
  • 01:42:41
    voltage control challenges and we did vote
  • 01:42:45
    on leadership changes. So as of next year, we will have Weiwei
  • 01:42:49
    from AEN and Scott from Oncor being chair
  • 01:42:52
    and vice chair of the group. And that's it.
  • 01:42:59
    Thanks for your update. Appreciate it.
  • 01:43:08
    Next, that will take us to IBRWG.
  • 01:43:25
    Great. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?
  • Item 15 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - IBRWG - Julia Matevosyan
    01:43:29
    Yeah, go ahead, Julie. All right, so we
  • 01:43:34
    met on November 15th.
  • 01:43:38
    We have this item on discussing
  • 01:43:42
    PFR performance under deep curtailment for
  • 01:43:46
    IBRs. We started with that item in October already
  • 01:43:50
    and had another IBR manufacturer
  • 01:43:55
    come and talk about limitations that they
  • 01:43:59
    have. So, yeah, basically they confirmed
  • 01:44:03
    similar findings that Vestas bro brought up before
  • 01:44:07
    that there is some sort of minimum technical limit
  • 01:44:13
    for wind resources below
  • 01:44:17
    which the IBR performance is deteriorated
  • 01:44:20
    and kind of is not. It's not possible to perform
  • 01:44:23
    in a similar manner as above this limit.
  • 01:44:28
    And then we had Nick Miller from
  • 01:44:31
    Hickory Ledge. He's a consultant, former GE
  • 01:44:36
    employee. So he has a lot of experience with wind turbines,
  • 01:44:40
    with wind turbine technology. So he came and he just talked
  • 01:44:44
    from, like, physical perspective. What's causing this limit,
  • 01:44:48
    why this limit is there. So I think he did really good job just clarifying
  • 01:44:53
    why operation below this limit, performance below
  • 01:44:57
    this limit for PFR is not possible.
  • 01:45:01
    Let's go a little bit more down.
  • 01:45:06
    And then yeah, this morning you already heard about this
  • 01:45:11
    NOGRR and PGRR. So Sunwook at that time
  • 01:45:14
    just provided an update of where the documents are at and
  • 01:45:18
    kind of what are the next steps. I think we covered this
  • 01:45:22
    this morning and then we had SPWG
  • 01:45:26
    IBRWG coordination item and that
  • 01:45:29
    was about multiple right through capability
  • 01:45:34
    of IBRs and then auto
  • 01:45:37
    reclosing schemes that transmission owners are
  • 01:45:40
    using. And if there is any way to coordinate between
  • 01:45:43
    this auto reclosing strategies and IBR multiple
  • 01:45:48
    right through capabilities to kind of achieve better performance for IBRs.
  • 01:45:53
    And so Mark McChesney who is a
  • 01:45:57
    vice chair of SPW, a chair of SPWG, he brought a
  • 01:46:01
    survey that they did between TDSPs. They only received five
  • 01:46:05
    responses, but these were larger TDS.
  • 01:46:09
    Basically conclusion here is that this auto reclosing strategies
  • 01:46:13
    are on more site specific. So there is no common,
  • 01:46:17
    you know, settings that are used across one TDSP or across
  • 01:46:21
    ERCOT. And so basically what comes out of
  • 01:46:25
    this is that needs to be a coordination between IBR plant
  • 01:46:29
    developers. So interconnecting entities and TDSPs
  • 01:46:34
    and discussion needs to happen to understand what are auto reclosing
  • 01:46:37
    strategies around this ibr. So including the line
  • 01:46:40
    that connects IBR to POI but also adjacent
  • 01:46:45
    lines. And so what we ended up with
  • 01:46:49
    right now is to coordinate with resource integration team at ERCOT
  • 01:46:53
    and see if just kind of a language about this
  • 01:46:57
    coordination, a need for this coordination can be included in resource
  • 01:47:02
    integration handbook. So we're still talking about this. We didn't
  • 01:47:05
    get resolution yet, so we
  • 01:47:09
    should keep this item still open. And ROS,
  • 01:47:12
    you know, list of items, but we'll probably close it soon.
  • 01:47:16
    And the last one I brought NERC and other
  • 01:47:20
    industry updates. So I think important one here is miso,
  • 01:47:24
    they presented kind of similar proposal for grid forming
  • 01:47:29
    for battery storage. So they process is basically
  • 01:47:33
    is done. They are in the process of implementing
  • 01:47:37
    the language for grid forming requirements into the
  • 01:47:40
    business practice manual. So it's basically accepting red lines and
  • 01:47:44
    releasing the black line document that will go in force in
  • 01:47:49
    January. And so basically grid forming requirement will be applied to all
  • 01:47:52
    future batteries going forward from the next cycle
  • 01:47:56
    of the generation interconnection studies. So they do inject generation connection
  • 01:48:00
    in cycles as a groups.
  • 01:48:04
    And so the next group coming up is from 2023
  • 01:48:08
    application period. And so
  • 01:48:11
    batteries in the cycle will be studied with those grid
  • 01:48:15
    forming requirements in mind and
  • 01:48:19
    then we can scroll a little bit down. I think this whole
  • 01:48:23
    page is on grid forming. Yeah, so this nerc,
  • 01:48:27
    I think this is important too. So three NERC standards basically
  • 01:48:31
    now went to FERC. They've been developed, approved in NERC
  • 01:48:34
    stakeholder process and now filed with FERC following
  • 01:48:39
    up on order 901. So this is PRC-028
  • 01:48:42
    which is data collection data
  • 01:48:46
    measurement standard. PRC-029 is right through standard for IBRs
  • 01:48:50
    and PRC-030 is when disturbances are
  • 01:48:54
    happening at generation plants. The plant is
  • 01:48:57
    supposed to do root cause analysis and follow up and
  • 01:49:01
    develop mitigation. So this is what that standard is about.
  • 01:49:05
    And these are all NERC standards. So these are all will apply in ERCOT as
  • 01:49:09
    well. Even though it's a following up on 4 quarter 901 and
  • 01:49:15
    they start a new milestone which will be focused on modeling.
  • 01:49:21
    And so there are a number of projects already opened for this
  • 01:49:24
    and NERC will hold technical workshop on January 15th
  • 01:49:28
    and 16th and
  • 01:49:32
    yeah, so and then there are just couple of related
  • 01:49:37
    to IBR performance events where I
  • 01:49:41
    linked up, you know presentations that are happening that are relevant. So deleted
  • 01:49:45
    links are all here if you are interested to see.
  • 01:49:48
    And this is all we had. And the next meeting is on Friday.
  • 01:49:53
    Next Friday. Thanks Julia.
  • 01:49:57
    Thanks for the update that
  • 01:50:07
    will take us to SPWG.
  • 01:50:29
    Can you go ahead and advance to the next slide?
  • Item 16 - System Protection Working Group - SPWG - Mark McChesney
    01:50:37
    Thank you. So the Last meeting was November 5,
  • 01:50:40
    2024. We did have a leadership election where I was nominated again
  • 01:50:43
    for to continue as chair in 2025
  • 01:50:47
    and we nominated Jordan Watkins of Centerpoint Energy as Vice chair.
  • 01:50:51
    We also received updates from Texas RE regarding this operation
  • 01:50:55
    statistics through Q2 of 2024.
  • 01:50:58
    We also received some updates on the NERC PRC activities and
  • 01:51:02
    standards updating. As Julie just mentioned, we reviewed
  • 01:51:06
    an IBR reclosing survey and practices. So within
  • 01:51:10
    in relation to the ROS action item for our two groups.
  • 01:51:14
    SPWG put up a survey to its members to
  • 01:51:18
    kind of get a feel of what the IBR reclosing practices
  • 01:51:22
    were across the ERCOT territory. We did get a very limited response
  • 01:51:26
    and not a consistent answer. So that's why you
  • 01:51:30
    know, we also discussed some of the suggestions
  • 01:51:36
    in IEEE 2800 around the number of free closes or number
  • 01:51:40
    of fall ride through events that an IBR was expected to ride through
  • 01:51:44
    as well as the maximum phase angle jump that
  • 01:51:47
    an IBR would ride through to take those numbers
  • 01:51:52
    into account. As we look at reclosing around IBRs not only
  • 01:51:56
    in the the tie line to the IBR but also lines adjacent to
  • 01:51:59
    it. Then we
  • 01:52:03
    reviewed the case build statistics between the steady
  • 01:52:06
    state working group case and the short circuit model. And then we
  • 01:52:10
    had a presentation on IBR challenges focused
  • 01:52:13
    on the lack of negative sequence current injection and some experiences
  • 01:52:17
    that we've had as with end to end testing
  • 01:52:21
    and failure of directional elements due
  • 01:52:24
    to the lack of negative sequence injection. That's a concern when applying
  • 01:52:29
    phaser based protection around IBRs. So that
  • 01:52:33
    was the conclusion of our meeting and I'd be happy to take any questions if
  • 01:52:36
    there are any.
  • 01:52:40
    Thanks, Mark. I appreciate your update and your continued
  • 01:52:44
    leadership. So looking forward to working with you next year.
  • 01:52:53
    We have one more working group, Sunny State Working group.
  • 01:53:01
    Hi, good morning everyone. Are you able to hear me?
  • Item 17 - Steady State Working Group - SSWG - William Robertson
    01:53:05
    We can go ahead. All right, so our November
  • 01:53:08
    meeting was pretty short. So just the two main topics to talk about
  • 01:53:12
    now that we had finished both of our case builds for this year. We went
  • 01:53:16
    over the 2025 transmission loss factor. So TSPs
  • 01:53:19
    have been submitting and verifying the data that ERCOT provided to the working group
  • 01:53:23
    and we should be able to have all of
  • 01:53:26
    that information given to ERCOT by today. Was the due date for
  • 01:53:29
    that. Also the other topic that we went over was our
  • 01:53:33
    calendar for next year with all of the due dates and
  • 01:53:36
    expected timelines for the 2025 SSWG
  • 01:53:40
    case building process. So that's
  • 01:53:44
    essentially the main topics that we covered in our meeting for November. Is there
  • 01:53:48
    any questions on that?
  • 01:53:54
    Don't see any questions. Thanks so much for your update.
  • 01:53:58
    Thank you.
  • Item 18 - Other Business - Katie Rich
    01:54:05
    All right, that will take us to down to other
  • Item 18.1 - Review Open Action Items List
    01:54:09
    business. And I wanted to go through the
  • 01:54:13
    open action items list one more time.
  • 01:54:33
    Julia, I believe on this first one you reported that you were
  • 01:54:37
    still working on this at iprwg. Is that correct?
  • 01:54:40
    Yes. Okay. We're close to finish, but not yet.
  • 01:54:44
    Okay. And then I
  • 01:54:48
    think with NDSWG they reported they are still working on the
  • 01:54:51
    ICCP handbook.
  • Item 18.2.3 - Operations Training Working Group OTWG
    01:54:58
    And then I think we were hoping to hear back on OTWG about
  • 01:55:02
    the NEXSTART resources. I don't know if anyone's on the line that
  • 01:55:06
    can speak to that one.
  • 01:55:20
    Okay. And then PLWG, we got an
  • 01:55:24
    update on that. Dylan, thank you for working on that one.
  • 01:55:29
    And then I believe the on the EPA regulations,
  • 01:55:34
    we'll keep that on here. I mean it's more of a coordination with WMS
  • 01:55:38
    and I know that on the WMS side, WMWG is
  • 01:55:42
    planning to have a discussion at their January
  • 01:55:46
    30th meeting about this.
  • 01:55:50
    One of our experts will be speaking on that meeting.
  • 01:55:53
    So we will leave this item here and
  • 01:56:03
    then on this TAC assignment,
  • 01:56:07
    I think we talked about this last time. I think,
  • 01:56:10
    you know, we, we feel like this issue has been resolved
  • 01:56:15
    by everything that's going on with the other
  • 01:56:18
    law, large loan issues like NPRR1238.
  • 01:56:23
    So I think I can report to TAC that,
  • 01:56:27
    you know, this assignment will be complete with
  • 01:56:32
    NPRR1238 if
  • 01:56:36
    we want to make some sort of notation about that one.
  • 01:56:41
    Katie, I'm still hesitant to remove that until we get
  • 01:56:45
    some clarity from ERCOT on what their proposal
  • 01:56:49
    is for their comments for 1238. This is.
  • 01:56:53
    Oh, good point, Chris. Yeah, yeah. And as
  • 01:56:57
    golden spread, we're frustrated with ERCOT right now because we haven't had answers
  • 01:57:00
    in six months on this. It's been sitting. So we'd like
  • 01:57:04
    to keep this there as another option because,
  • 01:57:08
    like I said, there has been no, no communication
  • 01:57:12
    whatsoever. We've reached out to ERCOT individually and we've
  • 01:57:16
    tried to do that through the working groups and we're getting nowhere. So we're
  • 01:57:19
    almost to the point where we're ready to move forward without ERCOT comments,
  • 01:57:23
    but we're trying to be as diplomatic as possible.
  • 01:57:27
    Yeah, Chris, I appreciate that. I'm sorry, maybe what I
  • 01:57:31
    should have said is if we can just maybe
  • 01:57:35
    put something in the update that we're kind of waiting. What happens
  • 01:57:39
    with NPRR1238. That way
  • 01:57:42
    it looks like, you know, we've taken this TAC assignment seriously.
  • 01:57:49
    Thank you. Yeah, thank you.
  • 01:58:24
    Thanks, Susie.
  • 01:58:28
    On the next one, on the September 60E2 event,
  • 01:58:32
    I feel like our work is completed on that.
  • 01:58:36
    I feel like we've seen the revision
  • 01:58:40
    requests associated with that this year. So I would probably just
  • 01:58:44
    report back to TAC that I feel like this item is largely completed
  • 01:58:48
    unless anyone disagrees.
  • 01:59:05
    Okay, thank you, guys. And then Susie
  • 01:59:08
    helped me significantly on this parking lot item issue.
  • 01:59:13
    If you want to scroll down so we can see those items,
  • 01:59:18
    my understanding is the only item
  • 01:59:22
    left is the Black Start service, which is
  • 01:59:25
    that Black Start working group.
  • Item 18.2.1 - Black Start Working Group - BSWG
    01:59:29
    So there's a couple of different things we could do.
  • 01:59:33
    We could keep just that item as an open
  • 01:59:37
    action item, and then that would allow us to
  • 01:59:42
    clear the deck on this parking lot item.
  • 01:59:46
    I wanted to see if folks had any thoughts on
  • 01:59:50
    this.
  • 02:00:00
    Yeah, go ahead, Freddie. Yeah, thanks,
  • 02:00:03
    Katie. Yeah, this is, this is definitely on the BSWG and
  • 02:00:07
    ERCOT's radar. We are hoping
  • 02:00:11
    to get more work done on this next year.
  • 02:00:14
    But I do agree it makes sense to keep this on
  • 02:00:19
    the list. So however,
  • 02:00:22
    however ROS wants to do that. I'M I'm okay with.
  • 02:00:25
    Yeah, but it's. It is com. You know, help me confirm
  • 02:00:30
    this. It's just. It's really just the Black Start service. Right.
  • 02:00:34
    Yeah. Correct. How we want to utilize esrs
  • 02:00:38
    in. In blackstart.
  • 02:00:44
    How about we make that an open action item for blackstart
  • 02:00:47
    working group, and then, yeah, we can kind of strike the rest of this.
  • 02:00:51
    I think we're trying to move away from parking
  • 02:00:55
    lot items anyway, so I think if it was just a direct assignment to BlackStart
  • 02:00:59
    Working Group, that might give us more visibility.
  • 02:01:46
    Thanks, Erin. I think that. I think that works.
  • 02:02:12
    All right. That looks good to me. We want to save
  • 02:02:17
    these so we can have the updates.
  • 02:02:21
    And I will put last couple items
  • 02:02:25
    in my update to TAC or
  • 02:02:28
    are for the January meeting.
  • 02:03:01
    Okay. Thanks, Erin.
  • 02:03:09
    Right. And then just a couple things that aren't on the agenda.
  • 02:03:13
    I wanted to thank all of the working group
  • 02:03:16
    leadership for all of their hard work this year.
  • 02:03:20
    I know we've had some particularly many technical
  • 02:03:23
    issues, so we couldn't have done it without you. I just
  • 02:03:27
    really wanted to thank Alex for serving as my vice
  • 02:03:31
    chair this year and just helping the meetings run smoothly
  • 02:03:35
    and just helping behind
  • 02:03:38
    the scenes to help with all the prep work that goes into preparing
  • 02:03:42
    for each of these on a monthly basis. And I
  • 02:03:46
    look forward to working with many of you guys next year.
  • 02:03:50
    And Susie and Erin, thank you so much for helping
  • 02:03:54
    to keep us straight and make sure the meetings are moving efficiently.
  • 02:03:59
    And happy holidays to everyone.
  • 02:04:02
    If I don't see you before the next couple of weeks.
  • Item 19 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
    02:04:07
    Thanks again. And if there's nothing else, then we.
  • 02:04:10
    We can adjourn.
2024-ros-combined-ballot-20241204
Dec 05, 2024 - xls - 138 KB
02-ros-agenda-20241205-
Nov 27, 2024 - docx - 54.4 KB
Systemplanningros_oct2024
Dec 05, 2024 - docx - 403.8 KB
October-2024-ercot-operations-report-public
Nov 25, 2024 - docx - 536.2 KB
09-owg_ros_20241205
Dec 03, 2024 - pptx - 47.9 KB
10-planning-working-group-report_11122024
Nov 27, 2024 - pptx - 49.3 KB
Meeting-materials-20241205
Nov 27, 2024 - zip - 3.7 MB
11-pdcwg-report-to-ros_120524
Dec 04, 2024 - pptx - 3.1 MB
12-ndswg_report_to_ros_11272024
Nov 27, 2024 - pptx - 40.2 KB
Revision-request-ros-20241205
Nov 27, 2024 - zip - 3 MB
Meeting-materials-20241205
Dec 02, 2024 - zip - 3.7 MB
14-vpwg_update_to_ros_nov
Nov 27, 2024 - pptx - 56 KB
15-ibrwg-report-to-ros-120524
Dec 02, 2024 - docx - 25.2 KB
Meeting-materials-20241205
Dec 03, 2024 - zip - 3.8 MB
16-spwg-ros-update-12-05-2024
Nov 27, 2024 - pptx - 33.1 KB
Revision-request-ros-20241205
Dec 02, 2024 - zip - 3.1 MB
Meeting-materials-20241205
Dec 04, 2024 - zip - 5.2 MB
17-sswg-report-to-ros-12-5-2024
Dec 03, 2024 - pptx - 48.8 KB
Meeting-materials-20241205
Dec 05, 2024 - zip - 5.5 MB
Revision-request-ros-20241205
Dec 04, 2024 - zip - 3.1 MB
Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - ERCOT Staff
Starts at 00:00:55
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:02:03
2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:03:00
3 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:04:22
4 - ERCOT Reports
Starts at 00:05:01
4.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
Starts at 00:05:19
4.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan
Starts at 00:07:31
5 - ROS Revision Requests - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:08:27
5.1 - PGRR117, Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Changes
Starts at 00:09:04
5.2 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
Starts at 00:10:07
5.3 - PGRR121, Related to NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs
Starts at 00:43:32
5.4 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load
Starts at 00:44:07
6 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:04:24
6.1 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
Starts at 01:04:29
7 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:08:17
7.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
Starts at 01:08:21
8 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:08:31
8.1 - PGRR073, Related to NPRR956, Designation of Providers of Transmission Additions
Starts at 01:08:36
9 - Operations Working Group - OWG - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 01:08:49
9.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG- Possible Vote
Starts at 01:09:05
9.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:09:09
9.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:09:30
10 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - Dylan Preas
Starts at 01:10:57
10.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:11:04
10.2 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:11:58
10.3 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection - PLWG - DWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:14:51
11 - Performance, Disturbance, Compliance Working Group - PDCWG - Kevin Bunch
Starts at 01:17:53
11.1 - NOGRR271, Related to NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:21:12
12 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - Gerardo Escamilla
Starts at 01:21:48
12.1 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:22:11
13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:25:31
Break
Starts at 01:30:11
14 - Voltage Profile Working Group - VPWG - Maribel Khayat
Starts at 01:42:05
15 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - IBRWG - Julia Matevosyan
Starts at 01:43:29
16 - System Protection Working Group - SPWG - Mark McChesney
Starts at 01:50:37
17 - Steady State Working Group - SSWG - William Robertson
Starts at 01:53:05
18 - Other Business - Katie Rich
Starts at 01:54:05
18.1 - Review Open Action Items List
Starts at 01:54:09
18.2.3 - Operations Training Working Group OTWG
Starts at 01:54:58
18.2.1 - Black Start Working Group - BSWG
Starts at 01:59:29
19 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
Starts at 02:04:07

Help Desk