10/17/2024 09:30 AM
Current Time 1:21:30
Duration 2:10:50
Loaded: 62.31%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 49:20
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
    • default, selected
    Search
    • 00:00:32All right. Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT. Before we
    • 00:00:36get started with the PRS meeting today,
    • 00:00:39I'm just going to go through a few meeting reminders.
    • 00:00:44We're going to use the chat to queue for motions or
    • 00:00:47discussions. So if you're on the Webex, you can enter yourself in
    • 00:00:51the chat. And then if you're in the meeting room, you can hold up your
    • 00:00:54card. And Brittany's over here in the corner. She will enter you in
    • 00:00:58the chat, or you can enter yourself. Please wait for the
    • 00:01:02chair to recognize you before you begin speaking.
    • 00:01:05And then when we go to voting, if you are a seated or voting
    • 00:01:09representative today, please make sure that you unmute
    • 00:01:12yourself if you're on the webex. And then after you have cast your
    • 00:01:15vote, please return to the mute function. That'll help us
    • 00:01:19be a little more efficient with the balloting process. Also,
    • 00:01:22like to ask everybody that's here in the meeting room today, please make sure that
    • 00:01:25you sign in in the sign in sheet outside the meeting room door.
    • 00:01:29And then the final reminder, if the webex ends for any reason, give us a
    • 00:01:32few minutes and we should start back up with the same meeting details,
    • 00:01:36or we will send something to the PRS listserv. And with that,
    • 00:01:40Diana, we have a quorum and are ready to get started. Okay,
    • 00:01:43great. Thank you, Suzy. Good morning, everybody.
    • 00:01:47Welcome to the October PRS meeting.
    • 00:01:51We will start this morning like we do every time, with our antitrust
    • Clip 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Diana Coleman
      00:01:55admonition that says, to avoid raising concerns about antitrust
    • 00:01:59liability, participants in ERCOT activities should refrain from proposing any
    • 00:02:03action or measure that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal or
    • 00:02:06state law. For additional information, stakeholders can consult
    • 00:02:10the statement of position on antitrust issues on the ERCOT website.
    • 00:02:15Also, all presentations and materials submitted by market participants
    • 00:02:18or any other entity to ERCOT staff for this meeting
    • 00:02:21are received and posted with the ERCOT content management
    • 00:02:25operating procedures.
    • Clip 2 - Approval of Minutes - Vote - Diana Coleman
      00:02:29Okay, so that
    • 00:02:33takes us to agenda item number two, the approval of the September 12
    • 00:02:37minutes. Suzie, do we have any edits or changes to
    • 00:02:41those minutes? We do not. Okay, perfect. If everybody
    • 00:02:45sounds good to you, we can add those to the combo ballot for the end
    • 00:02:48of the meeting. Okay, perfect.
    • Clip 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
      00:02:52All right, so that takes us to the Tac update. Tac met last
    • 00:02:56month. PRS presented three proposed revision
    • 00:02:59requests for their consideration, and all three of those were approved.
    • 00:03:04So that was pretty straightforward. We had NPRR1188, which was
    • 00:03:07implement the nodal dispatch and energy settlement for clrs.
    • 00:03:11We had NPRR1237, the retail market qualification testing requirements,
    • 00:03:15and NPRR1244, which was the clarification of CLR primary
    • 00:03:20frequency response responsibilities. So all three of those
    • 00:03:23were approved by TAC.
    • 00:03:27Okay, any comments or thoughts for the Tac
    • 00:03:31update? Okay, Troy, that takes
    • 00:03:34us to you. We have a project update. Hey, good morning.
    • Clip 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
      00:03:38 This is Troy Anderson with ERCOT portfolio management with
    • 00:03:41my project update for this month.
    • 00:03:45Corey, if we could jump to slide three, it'd be fine. Thank you.
    • 00:03:49Okay, so recent activity, the September
    • 00:03:52release went in on the 26
    • 00:03:56September with several RIOO items, plus that
    • 00:04:00the set of changes to CDR reports driven by the forecast presentation
    • 00:04:04platform project. We had an implementation
    • 00:04:09of XML on
    • 00:04:13October 1 related to NPRR1217.
    • 00:04:16I know there were concerns by entities about making
    • 00:04:20an immediate switch over, I believe. So we're doing
    • 00:04:23both XML and VDI until December 1.
    • 00:04:28That's all noted in the market notice. So if you're interested
    • 00:04:31in that, then on October
    • 00:04:359 we went live with SCR799. So at the last
    • 00:04:39meeting I said we were going to go live sometime in Q4, and it
    • 00:04:44certainly is in Q4, the leading days of Q4. So that has
    • 00:04:48went live. There is some type of
    • 00:04:52an export feature that's yet to be released
    • 00:04:55that we are trying to get in by December.
    • 00:04:58So FYI, if you're interested in
    • 00:05:02the results of 799 and
    • 00:05:07the things that are coming up November 1, is this remaining
    • 00:05:11portion of NPRR1205 relating to credit rating requirements.
    • 00:05:16And then the big item for Q4 is Texas Set
    • 00:05:205.0 goes live in the vicinity of 1110.
    • 00:05:24There's a YDE several day process where they cut over.
    • 00:05:28So it's in that, in that timeframe,
    • 00:05:32several rmgrrs, of course, and a couple SCRs
    • 00:05:35and the primary NPRR1095.
    • 00:05:39So everything is going well with that still on track.
    • 00:05:46Okay, let's move on to the matrix here.
    • 00:05:50So some of these items, of course, we just talked about like
    • 00:05:531217 and 799.
    • 00:05:56The red text though in the lower right, you see 1184
    • 00:06:00now is planned for December. That's update to procedures
    • 00:06:04for managing interest on cash collateral.
    • 00:06:08And then in mid September we're expecting to go live
    • 00:06:12with NPRR945, net metering requirements.
    • 00:06:16That's a trailing reporting effort
    • 00:06:20that's been waiting in the wings quite a while,
    • 00:06:23but we finally figured out a path forward on that. We're expecting a
    • 00:06:27December go live for that.
    • 00:06:32Now. It's about that time of year where we start talking about
    • 00:06:36the upcoming year. Thank you, Corey.
    • 00:06:39So here's our first look at 2025.
    • 00:06:43One thing is that NPRR1183 had to
    • 00:06:46get moved from December to next March. That's some
    • 00:06:50ECEII posting changes.
    • 00:06:55We also have 1145 planned for March,
    • 00:06:58which is use of state, estimated state
    • 00:07:02estimator calculated ERCOT wide tlfs in lieu of seasonal
    • 00:07:06base case ERCOT wide tlfs for settlements.
    • 00:07:10That one's targeted for March. But the course,
    • 00:07:14the big news for next year is RTC+B with
    • 00:07:18the targeted go live on December 5 of 2025.
    • 00:07:23You'll see we've kind of done some color coding here.
    • 00:07:26The gray boxes are kind of highlighting where the whole market trial sequence
    • 00:07:30is going on, and then that greenish box
    • 00:07:34in the lower right, indicating that we'll be into stabilization after
    • 00:07:38go live, which I'm sure will be at least
    • 00:07:41three or four months. Also,
    • 00:07:45in order to kind of marry up, you know,
    • 00:07:48my reporting with what Matt reports TAC the board,
    • 00:07:51I've kind of taken the highlights of some of his market trials activities and
    • 00:07:55plugged them into my slide deck here, the different, you know,
    • 00:07:58the, these blue, orange, and pinkish
    • 00:08:02colored slide boxes. So for more information
    • 00:08:06there, I encourage you to go to Matt's presentations, but I'm just trying to
    • 00:08:09kind of mimic that a little bit to show the major activities going
    • 00:08:13on. Troy, did you want to take questions now or at the end? I can
    • 00:08:17take them now. Okay, Bill, go ahead.
    • 00:08:22Thanks, Troy. Earlier version of this chart
    • 00:08:26included at one point some of the other major projects,
    • 00:08:32drs and others.
    • 00:08:35I wonder if you could bring that back just so we get an I indication,
    • 00:08:38not knowing that it's subject to change. That was
    • 00:08:42helpful in kind of putting all the different pieces together beyond RTC,
    • 00:08:46which we know is the near term focus. But that kind of
    • 00:08:50helped us get a sense of what you guys are thinking on
    • 00:08:53where those may fall on them. I'll bring that back next month. Thank you.
    • 00:08:56Thanks for that reminder.
    • 00:08:59Okay,
    • 00:09:03let's go on. We can always double back if needed. Okay,
    • 00:09:07now this slide is the latest news on the various
    • 00:09:11things we were trying to squeeze in before RTC
    • 00:09:14go live. So just as a reminder of the history,
    • 00:09:17back in February, approximately, we started digging into
    • 00:09:21the aging revision requests, things that have been out there
    • 00:09:24a while, and we got your feedback. We tried to
    • 00:09:29squeeze in some items in advance of the RTC market
    • 00:09:34trials and major development windows. And as
    • 00:09:40in early 2024, that seemed like there was a realistic
    • 00:09:44window, you know, to do that kind of thing. But that was also the
    • 00:09:48time when we thought RTC was going live sometime in 2026.
    • 00:09:51So as, as it became clear that the go live
    • 00:09:55could be done sooner, that window that we were
    • 00:09:58trying to hit a, almost evaporated, you know,
    • 00:10:01to, to be honest. So this is kind of the result of,
    • 00:10:05of locking down that RTC date and final decisions
    • 00:10:09on projects. I'd like to jump through these quick just to let
    • 00:10:13everyone know the reasons why that we had to make some
    • 00:10:17decisions here. We'll start with the one bit of good news.
    • 00:10:21NPRR965 there at the top, Gredpe shutdown exemption.
    • 00:10:25We're trying to squeeze that in this year.
    • 00:10:28Well, the reporting folks were
    • 00:10:31unable to do that without disrupting RTC, but they did say
    • 00:10:35that we're going to have the hood up on GredP for RTC,
    • 00:10:39and they believe it's a significant savings
    • 00:10:43to just put this in with that. And so that's
    • 00:10:46been agreed to by the ROTC project leadership,
    • 00:10:50and that is our plan. We expect they'll change control this scope
    • 00:10:54into their project in November.
    • 00:10:57So, unfortunately not getting it this year.
    • 00:11:01But the good news is we can get it at the end of next year
    • 00:11:03and not have to wait for 2026 or later.
    • 00:11:08The remaining items are all basically pushed after RTC.
    • 00:11:14Let's start with 1004.
    • 00:11:17That one we were, we were expecting that it was something we could
    • 00:11:21squeeze in, but once we got looking at it right before initiation,
    • 00:11:24we actually approved it to initiate. And then the team was looking
    • 00:11:28at it and they started seeing all kinds of manual process risks.
    • 00:11:32Automation needs testing
    • 00:11:36above and beyond what we had estimated in the IA. All these started popping
    • 00:11:41up in the discussions and we basically had
    • 00:11:44to put a halt to it at that point because we saw that it
    • 00:11:47was just going to be too onerous, especially on the GM's team that would do
    • 00:11:51the development that's so heavily involved in RTC.
    • 00:11:54So that one, we did our level best effort and had to halt
    • 00:11:58it. The three items that I've been talking about
    • 00:12:02in terms of a reporting bundle, that's 1035,
    • 00:12:051208.
    • 00:12:08Thank you, Corey. And 805.
    • 00:12:12Those, you know, back in February, March, we thought, okay, we got
    • 00:12:16a window for that. But as I worked with the reporting folks here in more
    • 00:12:19recent months, they have been, they have,
    • 00:12:23they did their level best to try to find a window, and it just didn't
    • 00:12:26work out. They just had too much coming up with RTC in
    • 00:12:30the latter part of this year. So we had to defer those.
    • 00:12:331128,
    • 00:12:35allow FFR procurement up to FFR
    • 00:12:39limit without proration. You see, that's on hold. We started that project that
    • 00:12:43was one of your six that you wanted us to try to accelerate. We started
    • 00:12:46it, got into it and realized there's a vendor impact that we hadn't
    • 00:12:50identified in the IA, so we had
    • 00:12:53to halt that, because as much as we're
    • 00:12:56trying to limit labor on our own staff, that would conflict
    • 00:13:00with RTC even more. So we're trying to do so with the vendor.
    • 00:13:04We're trying to limit putting any non RTC
    • 00:13:07scope on their plate. So that had to be put on hold
    • 00:13:10and it'll be held till post RTC.
    • 00:13:13And then the last one, SCR825, ERCOT, voice communications aggregation.
    • 00:13:18You know, as we've talked before, it's a very small telecom change,
    • 00:13:21but ERCOT believes that we need to integrate
    • 00:13:25the differing information on the telecom side with EMS
    • 00:13:29and MMS in order to do that properly. So we
    • 00:13:33need to hold off on that as well, until EMS and MMS
    • 00:13:37resources would have time to work on it. So that's most likely
    • 00:13:41post RTC as well.
    • 00:13:44So, you know, these are items we've been talking about over the last months,
    • 00:13:47and we appreciated your feedback. In the end, I think
    • 00:13:51all we got in was 1058. That was out of the six that
    • 00:13:55you had really wanted us to try to squeeze in. But as
    • 00:13:58I described at the start, the window to do this work really
    • 00:14:04almost went away once we ended up with the December 2025
    • 00:14:08RTC. Go live.
    • 00:14:13Okay,
    • 00:14:16in my last slide, as usual, is recommended.
    • 00:14:20Priorities and ranks.
    • 00:14:24I'll give a little, little heads up on the first 1239,
    • 00:14:27and 1240.
    • 00:14:31I believe that there is a path to
    • 00:14:34maybe a cheaper solution.
    • 00:14:38And you'll see the priority of 2026, which is post RTC.
    • 00:14:41There might be a path to an earlier solution as well.
    • 00:14:45So I've asked. I will ask that we consider
    • 00:14:48tabling those and give us a month to take one
    • 00:14:52to sharpen the pencil a little more on the ias for these two.
    • 00:14:57It would still be on the same path due a December board.
    • 00:15:02That's Troy, we have one question, if you're sure.
    • 00:15:05Go ahead, Martha.
    • 00:15:09Thanks, Diana. Martha and Smith, Oncor. Troy, I just wanted to thank you and
    • 00:15:12the ERCOT team for your work on SCR799. That was
    • 00:15:16an SCR that Oncor sponsored probably five years ago,
    • 00:15:19and a lot of people internally, been anxiously awaiting its implementation.
    • 00:15:23So we really appreciate that work and also you all being able to
    • 00:15:27accelerate it a little bit into early Q four.
    • 00:15:30So thanks to the team for that. Thank you,
    • 00:15:33Martha. An interesting anecdote on that one,
    • 00:15:36that project gated execution on October 1,
    • 00:15:40and we went live on October 9. So that shows it
    • 00:15:44was an unusual type project, not a lot of development.
    • 00:15:47It was more setting the stage for data access and things.
    • 00:15:50So kind of an unusual circumstance I haven't seen
    • 00:15:54in a long time, but thank you.
    • 00:15:57We have another question from Alex Miller.
    • 00:16:02Hi, Alex Miller with EDF renewables. And this might be
    • 00:16:05a question for Freddie, but NPRR1198
    • 00:16:09had a 2025 priority. And I know
    • 00:16:12the main impact was a hire, but I thought there was a system change.
    • 00:16:15Is that not one that's going to make it on your list?
    • 00:16:221198 is not yet in flight.
    • 00:16:27We've been. I'm at risk of speaking off the cuff here and being
    • 00:16:31wrong. Do you mind if I take that question
    • 00:16:34back? I know we've been talking about it recently, and it.
    • 00:16:38It may actually be able to start in 2025. And I need to check
    • 00:16:42my, my notes. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate
    • 00:16:45an update when you can. Thank you. Thank you.
    • 00:16:53All clear. Okay. Thank you for your time today.
    • 00:16:57Thank you, Troy. And then,
    • 00:17:00Troy, just one quick question. I guess as we get closer to real time
    • 00:17:04implementation next year, this will be one of those living documents that
    • 00:17:08we see, and there's like a. There'll be a cutoff, I'm assuming,
    • 00:17:12when there will be a. A time when we won't be able to implement
    • 00:17:16anything new, and then we'll touch that back up on the other
    • 00:17:19end once real time is implemented, and then we start seeing the
    • 00:17:23post RTC that you were noting, then we'll have some more updates
    • 00:17:26on that. Is that correct? My thought there is that by
    • 00:17:31early next year, we should be able to start planning
    • 00:17:34for the post RTC project
    • 00:17:38sequence. And so what I thought I'd do is bring up the aging
    • 00:17:42provision request list again, and we'll talk through it, try to prioritize
    • 00:17:45it, figure out what might fit, where ERCOT
    • 00:17:49can suggest what things may group together well, and so
    • 00:17:52that can have us prepared for the post
    • 00:17:56RTC world. Now, of course, it'll all depend on if revision
    • 00:18:00requests emerge from RTC that kind of pushed
    • 00:18:04the old ones aside again. But if not, then we'd have a plan that
    • 00:18:07we can start executing on. There's also a theory that if
    • 00:18:11things are going well with RTC, we might even be able to get a little
    • 00:18:14head start on projects kicking off,
    • 00:18:17as long as we don't disrupt the project. So that's
    • 00:18:22one idea I have in mind. Perfect. Thank you, Troy. We appreciate
    • Clip 5 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman
      00:18:25all the hard work. Thank you. Okay,
    • 00:18:29so that'll take us to section five. We have a handful
    • 00:18:32of revision requests for consideration for IA's,
    • 00:18:37and Andy is not here today.
    • 00:18:40And so I'm going to be monitoring the queue, but if I miss something,
    • Clip 5.1 - NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
      00:18:43just don't be afraid to call me out on it. We're going
    • 00:18:47to start with 1180. This is coming to us from
    • 00:18:50Oncor we had.
    • 00:18:54So last month, we voted to recommend approval of 1180,
    • 00:18:58as amended by the August 28 ERCOT comments.
    • 00:19:02There were two abstentions on that vote. The IA
    • 00:19:06for 1180 was posted this week,
    • 00:19:09and we had ERCOT comments that were filed in addition to that.
    • 00:19:13And so I wanted to see if we wanted to start with
    • 00:19:19the comments or.
    • 00:19:23Go ahead, Mark.
    • 00:19:27Thank you, chair Mark Dreyfus, for the small commercial consumer market segment.
    • 00:19:34Without going into a lot of discussion, if we can avoid it,
    • 00:19:38I'd like to ask ERCOT to
    • 00:19:42withdraw the IA, reconsider it
    • 00:19:46and bring it back next month so we can keep on track to get
    • 00:19:50this approved by the board on the current schedule. Because I
    • 00:19:54think there's a misalignment between the
    • 00:19:58language of the NPRR, which is extremely
    • 00:20:01narrow, and the rather
    • 00:20:05large multimillion dollar impact in
    • 00:20:10the IA. I understand that we're going through
    • 00:20:14a period of really
    • 00:20:17significant change in our planning function,
    • 00:20:23but that change is not the result of this NPRR.
    • 00:20:26The protocols are very specific about what's supposed
    • 00:20:30to be in an IA. It's the impact of a revision request.
    • 00:20:35The numbers here really read more like a legislative budget
    • 00:20:39analysis and not an impact analysis of an.
    • 00:20:43Of a revision request. So if ERCOT would withdraw this reconsidered,
    • 00:20:48it might be a zero impact NPRR, it might be a small
    • 00:20:51impact to do the review that's required in the. In the NPRR,
    • 00:20:55but I think there's a misalignment here. Thank you.
    • 00:20:59Thank you, Mark. Does someone from ERCOT want to speak to the
    • 00:21:02comments in the IA that were filed?
    • 00:21:06Yeah. This Prabhu Gnanam, ERCOT
    • 00:21:10I can. Do you want to talk about the additional comments
    • 00:21:13or do you want to talk about the IA? Probably more so
    • 00:21:17the IA, unless someone has comments on
    • 00:21:20the other. But let's start with the IA comments.
    • 00:21:25So, this. This IA is filed
    • 00:21:30to change the load definitions
    • 00:21:34that's included in the planning model, planning studies.
    • 00:21:37So, specifically, there are three parts.
    • 00:21:41One is the traditional ones, which we have done is look
    • 00:21:45at loads that have interconnection agreement
    • 00:21:48or other agreements. And there is two parts that's added to
    • 00:21:52this NPRR. One is independent third
    • 00:21:56party load forecast that's been deemed predictable by ERCOT.
    • 00:22:00And the last part is the letter from
    • 00:22:03a TDSP officer testing the load, which the tsps
    • 00:22:08have yet to sign and have interconnection agreement.
    • 00:22:13So the parts b and C are
    • 00:22:16the ones new to the planning process. This planning
    • 00:22:20studies and other things we do. So there
    • 00:22:24are two parts to it. The impact of this two
    • 00:22:29additional load definitions applies
    • 00:22:33to both RTP and the RPG.
    • 00:22:37That's our RTP is our annual planning process,
    • 00:22:41and RPG is the
    • 00:22:45subsequent analysis which looks at individual projects
    • 00:22:49and approves those through the stakeholder process.
    • 00:22:54So this change happened after the
    • 00:22:572023, 2024 budget, or 2024
    • 00:23:01to 2025 budget was submitted. Again, this is the
    • 00:23:05definitions b and C. We view this as driven
    • 00:23:09by what was specifically written in House Bill 5066
    • 00:23:13that was passed in 2023, which requires
    • 00:23:18BEC to consider loads for which the electric utility has
    • 00:23:21yet to sign an interconnection agreement as determined by the electric
    • 00:23:25utility, which is responsible for serving that load.
    • 00:23:28So our impact analysis focuses
    • 00:23:33on what is the impact to the planning studies and additional
    • 00:23:36work that is added
    • 00:23:42to both the RTP and RPG.
    • 00:23:46And in addition to that, when we talk about RTP and RPG,
    • 00:23:51there are. There are other studies we have to perform, like dynamic analysis,
    • 00:23:55and we have to keep track of this load. So there
    • 00:23:58is also additional requirements to be done in terms of, like, you know,
    • 00:24:01forecasting and other things. So that's what this IA
    • 00:24:05captures. So, if people have been following the
    • 00:24:09RTP process, annual process, we have tried
    • 00:24:13to include or already included the
    • 00:24:16b and C portions of that in our current RTP,
    • 00:24:20which we're trying to get ahead
    • 00:24:23of this. But we have significant challenges in terms of resources.
    • 00:24:27We are not. We're not able to complete all our studies.
    • 00:24:31This is competing with the resources, current resources we have. So this
    • 00:24:34IA captures the impact on planning
    • 00:24:39system planning and load
    • 00:24:44modeling groups or the load forecasting group. I'm sorry.
    • 00:24:48Outlay that. What is the impact of
    • 00:24:52this particular, you want to call it definitions
    • 00:24:56or additional requirements that's added to ERCOT.
    • 00:25:01So, based on that, we came up with, you know,
    • 00:25:05looking at, there is. There's additional comments filed, which shows
    • 00:25:08the. The amount of projects that comes out of a normal
    • 00:25:12RPG process, RTP process. And this adds to
    • 00:25:16the, you know, work, which we already do. And it
    • 00:25:19projects some of the, you know, work that needs to be
    • 00:25:23performed in ERCOT to meet those requirements.
    • 00:25:27So, based on those, we added
    • 00:25:31eleven ftes total. Four for RTP,
    • 00:25:35four for the RPG group, and two engineers for Dynamic Studies
    • 00:25:39group, and one additional FTE for load
    • 00:25:43forecasting group. So, with that, I'm going to pause
    • 00:25:46here, see if you have any questions for me. Thank you.
    • 00:25:50Thank you, Eric. Goff so
    • 00:25:59if this NPRR were
    • 00:26:03to not pass for some reason,
    • 00:26:07which, to be clear, I want to, I think it's required to do
    • 00:26:11this work under the law.
    • 00:26:14But if it were to not pass, would ERCOT
    • 00:26:19not have to hire these ftes?
    • 00:26:29So I guess the way to answer this is if right
    • 00:26:32now we are not required by protocol. I mean, of course,
    • 00:26:36we have to eventually consider that, you know, the legislation,
    • 00:26:40but currently we're not
    • 00:26:43considering this as part of RPG. We don't have the resources to do that.
    • 00:26:46Yes. We need to get the resources one way or another. Okay, great.
    • 00:26:53For many years, I've supported ERCOT hiring
    • 00:26:56the resources that you need, especially on the engineering side. And so
    • 00:27:01I think this is necessary.
    • 00:27:03But it feels like something that
    • 00:27:09without assigning blame or trying to solve anything, it feels like this
    • 00:27:12is something that maybe should have just been in the normal ERCOT budget.
    • 00:27:16And as
    • 00:27:19stakeholders at PRS, we don't have control over the ERCOT
    • 00:27:23hiring process and we shouldn't have control of the ERCOT hiring process.
    • 00:27:27But it feels like this is just something that
    • 00:27:31we have to do regardless of
    • 00:27:35the specifics of this NPRR. And so I
    • 00:27:39get your point, Mark, that, you know, should the impact analysis
    • 00:27:43show something other than this? Because it's not
    • 00:27:47necessarily tied to this effort.
    • 00:27:51ERCOT, you know, is already in a situation
    • 00:27:55where these resources are necessary. And this
    • 00:27:59NPRR feels like, it's almost like the NPRR's
    • 00:28:03we do to change the protocols to meet what we're already doing,
    • 00:28:07where we have to modify words to meet the system
    • 00:28:11requirements. It feels like this is that kind of NPRR but for,
    • 00:28:14you know, a procedure. So that's
    • 00:28:18my perspective on this. And I think that
    • 00:28:22I would support, you know, a revised impact
    • 00:28:29analysis either at PRS or TAC.
    • 00:28:34But I don't see how these
    • 00:28:37things are necessarily related, although the work that
    • 00:28:41these people will do is important and necessary. And I appreciate that you're
    • 00:28:44hiring to fill these positions. Thank you,
    • 00:28:48Eriche. Bob, in a few
    • 00:28:51minutes, we're going to talk about NPRR1202,
    • 00:28:55which would certainly fund all of this. Thank you,
    • 00:29:03Martha. Thank you,
    • 00:29:06Martha. Hence, with Oncor, as many of you all know, Oncor sponsored this
    • 00:29:10NPRR. It was primarily intended to describe
    • 00:29:14how these forecasted load projects would be processed through
    • 00:29:17the regional planning group process. It really doesn't
    • 00:29:21actually address the RTP. And so
    • 00:29:25that part is a little bit confusing here. But ultimately,
    • 00:29:29I think these statutory changes have created additional work for ERCOT.
    • 00:29:35Some of the things in the IA do seem a little bit broader than what
    • 00:29:38the NPRR is specifically addressing. However,
    • 00:29:42I'm supportive of ERCOT having the resources that it needs to do
    • 00:29:46its job. I think some of the data that ERCOT filed yesterday indicates
    • 00:29:50that even the. The independent reviews that they've done between 2023
    • 00:29:55and 2024 have doubled. They obviously need additional
    • 00:29:59resources and staff. And, you know,
    • 00:30:02I'd like to see the NPRR move forward. I think that
    • 00:30:06it's best for all of us to have a clear understanding of how these forecasted
    • 00:30:10load projects would be processed through the RPG,
    • 00:30:13because that's a very gray area right now, and this NPRR would help
    • 00:30:17to clarify that. Thanks. Thank you, Martha.
    • 00:30:21Mark, go ahead. Well, I agree with my colleagues.
    • 00:30:24This is an important function that we
    • 00:30:29need to properly staff these transmission projects
    • 00:30:34that are coming up for growth, that are
    • 00:30:39being revealed by forecasted load and officer letters are
    • 00:30:42very important to the small commercial consumer market segment.
    • 00:30:47I mean, just yesterday we had a regional planning group meeting
    • 00:30:51where I think we looked at $473 million
    • 00:30:54of projects. Three of those projects were far West Texas projects
    • 00:30:58that aren't even included in the Permian Basin reliability
    • 00:31:02plan. So that'll be funds we'll be spending for transmission in
    • 00:31:06addition to the, whatever, $15 billion,
    • 00:31:10possibly, for the. For the Permian Basin.
    • 00:31:16For my small commercial consumers, there's a
    • 00:31:19lot of need pending for transmission
    • 00:31:23on the outskirts of urban areas and in
    • 00:31:27smaller communities that are growing, that have not been able to get
    • 00:31:30transmission extended because of the prior rules and the forecasted load
    • 00:31:34and the officer letters is really going to help them.
    • 00:31:38But we're already doing that. We're already doing a
    • 00:31:41lot of this. So in the spring,
    • 00:31:44ERCOT requested officer letters. Very suddenly,
    • 00:31:48they requested officer letters. Nonetheless, they did so,
    • 00:31:51and we immediately changed our planning perspective.
    • 00:31:56We went from one load forecast to an extremely different load forecast
    • 00:32:00overnight. That load forecast change in the spring is
    • 00:32:04driving a lot of these project submissions.
    • 00:32:09I have clients in my other roles who
    • 00:32:13are waiting on project submissions, and they're being
    • 00:32:17accommodated by this change that we did in planning perspective.
    • 00:32:21And so we need this. It's really important as we move forward.
    • 00:32:24This is a big budgetary item for ERCOT. I support that.
    • 00:32:28But just on an overall philosophical
    • 00:32:33basis, we need to have our impact analyses
    • 00:32:37do what the impact analyses are supposed to do and not do something
    • 00:32:41else. And if you read in chapter 21 now,
    • 00:32:46I have too many things open on my screen.
    • 00:32:5621.4.6, paragraph two.
    • 00:33:00The impact analysis shall assess the impact of
    • 00:33:03the proposed revision request on staffing, computer systems,
    • 00:33:07operations, etcetera. The impact
    • 00:33:11of this specific revision request is very narrow.
    • 00:33:15The impact of the change that we're
    • 00:33:19going through and planning, partly due to, to the
    • 00:33:22legislative change and partly due to need,
    • 00:33:27that's been. Been on hold for a dozen years.
    • 00:33:30That's very large. That's a significant budget item
    • 00:33:34for ERCOT, but it's not due to this MTR.
    • 00:33:37So I share Martha's concern. I want to get
    • 00:33:40this passed. I want to get it through the board at its upcoming meeting.
    • 00:33:45But I don't think we should be
    • 00:33:48bringing to the board a revision request
    • 00:33:53with a $2,000,000.12 Fte
    • 00:33:56burden that really didn't come from the NPRR.
    • 00:34:00I think that distorts our process. I see there might
    • 00:34:03be other NPRRs on the horizon that face the same
    • 00:34:06issue. I don't think we've done this before. And so
    • 00:34:10I'd like to ask ERCOT to withdraw this reconsider to the
    • 00:34:14appropriate number, bring it back to us next month or bring
    • 00:34:18it directly to TAC so that we can stay on track to
    • 00:34:21get this to the board in time. Otherwise, I think we've given
    • 00:34:25poor information to the board that reflects poorly on us.
    • 00:34:29Martha, go ahead.
    • 00:34:32Thanks. Yeah. Mark, I appreciate your comments. I think ERCOT's
    • 00:34:36hearing the feedback. I don't think it's fair to put
    • 00:34:39them on the spot today and ask them for commitment to withdraw it. But I
    • 00:34:43think that they can think about it between now and TAC and decide how they
    • 00:34:46want to proceed either way.
    • 00:34:49Going back to what Eric said, these are changes founded in the statute
    • 00:34:53that are driving the work that ERCOT has to do now.
    • 00:34:56And so regardless of whether the end result is a $2.5
    • 00:35:00million impact analysis or somehow they whittle that down to a million,
    • 00:35:04I still think this needs to move forward because it's an important adoption
    • 00:35:08of House Bill 5066 into the protocol. So I wouldn't want
    • 00:35:11to see an expectation
    • 00:35:15for revised IA being a hold up to moving this forward.
    • 00:35:18If by some chance ERCOT wants to commit to that today,
    • 00:35:21that's great, but reading the faces in the room, I'm not seeing that.
    • 00:35:25And so if we don't hear, hear that from them, I. I would like to
    • 00:35:28see a vote on this today, if possible. Thank you,
    • 00:35:33Martha. That's a good point, too, that you raised. Between PRS
    • 00:35:38and TAC, there is time. Should ERCOT want to
    • 00:35:43evaluate or reevaluate the IA?
    • 00:35:46There's time to do that between now and the next or between
    • 00:35:50TAC. So if that's a consideration while this is still moving
    • 00:35:54forward, it's an optionality. It's not a must have, but it is an option out
    • 00:35:57there. Rob?
    • 00:36:01Rob bevel tNMp. Yeah, I do support ERCOT taking
    • 00:36:05another look at this, but I don't think we
    • 00:36:08need to hold it up here today. So I'd like to make a motion to
    • 00:36:11approve. Okay,
    • 00:36:14we have a second. Do we need an individual ballot on this one?
    • 00:36:17Okay, so we go ahead, Mark.
    • 00:36:21I mean, given the discussion we've just had,
    • 00:36:24I think the interest of the members who have
    • 00:36:28spoken is to move it forward to TAC,
    • 00:36:31but to receive some
    • 00:36:34kind of commitment from ERCOT that they will rethink
    • 00:36:38whatever that rethink might look like. So before I
    • 00:36:42mass to vote on the motion, I'd like to
    • 00:36:45know what ERCOT thinks about the request to rethink.
    • 00:36:49And as the seconder of the motion,
    • 00:36:52I feel like that was part of the spirit of the conversation. Rob Troy.
    • 00:36:58Yes. So it was a motion
    • 00:37:02by Rob, second by Eriche Troy, go ahead.
    • 00:37:07I just like to say, as the person who is obviously attached to
    • 00:37:11every ia that comes through PRS, we have
    • 00:37:15heard your comments and concerns. We have people on the phone also
    • 00:37:19hearing. And so if you move it forward,
    • 00:37:22we will take it back to our internal processes
    • 00:37:26and discuss before TAC. So I can't promise we're going
    • 00:37:30to make any changes, but I can promise that we were going to. We will
    • 00:37:33consider these concerns and act.
    • 00:37:38If we see an action we can take, we'll take it. Thank you,
    • 00:37:42Troy. Christy Hobbs.
    • 00:37:45Yeah, thank you. And Troy really covered it.
    • 00:37:49I'd say we will take it back. We will consider it.
    • 00:37:52But what I would suggest is that it's not uncommon that we
    • 00:37:56have legislation that turns into PUC rules that gets further divined
    • 00:38:00into our protocols. And unfortunately,
    • 00:38:04we weren't able to get this one ahead of the process before
    • 00:38:07we started the process. And because we were under requirements
    • 00:38:11to move forward, we had to start the work before we
    • 00:38:14had it further defined in protocols. Now, the bonus of that is
    • 00:38:18it gave us some experience this past year, and we were able to get the
    • 00:38:20language right, but we will take it back. But at the end of the
    • 00:38:24day, it does nothing negate the need that we're
    • 00:38:28doubling the size of the system. It's going to take more people to support it.
    • 00:38:35Thank you, Eric.
    • 00:38:39Eric Blakey with pardonales. I just. I think I have
    • 00:38:42a basic question, and I apologize. I'm just trying to understand how this
    • 00:38:46IA fits with the budget process
    • 00:38:50that ERCOT goes through at the PUC.
    • 00:38:54And when these ias are approved, and they go through the board, even through
    • 00:38:58the PUC, they still have to go through the budget process
    • 00:39:02to get their funding for all their ftes and everything.
    • 00:39:05So I guess I'm just wondering, is the
    • 00:39:09concern that setting this,
    • 00:39:14these employees and getting agreement of the amount of
    • 00:39:17employment that's going to be needed to, to implement this NPRR,
    • 00:39:22is there a concern that that's somehow
    • 00:39:26bypassing the budget process, or. I'm just trying to
    • 00:39:30understand how that fits together.
    • 00:39:36Does someone from ERCOT want to comment on that question? This is
    • 00:39:40Richard Schiele, ERCOT CFO.
    • 00:39:44When we have these eyes put forward, we consider how
    • 00:39:48the eyes and the additional headcount requirements fit with
    • 00:39:51our current budget, our current priorities at iRacon,
    • 00:39:55and when we are asking for additional funding like this. As you're
    • 00:39:58aware, PUc orders provide our
    • 00:40:02total sources and uses of funding and
    • 00:40:05what we have available. When we have legislative
    • 00:40:10priorities, we react to that.
    • 00:40:13But this is something more that we would take care of at the f
    • 00:40:16and a committee. But this does process through our budget and financial
    • 00:40:20planning processes. So a follow up question
    • 00:40:24I had on that. So the
    • 00:40:28annual reoccurring o and m budget for these
    • 00:40:31ftes, that's not specifically tied in just to this NPRR,
    • 00:40:35it has this NPRR. But if there is a future NPRR that
    • 00:40:39may be impactful to either the RTP or
    • 00:40:42the RPG process, those employees or those ftes
    • 00:40:47would be applicable and be able to be used for that. Correct?
    • 00:40:50I don't want to. Just. One of the concerns I had was these
    • 00:40:54ftes could only work on what's included within 1180.
    • 00:40:58And I just wanted to for clarification that those
    • 00:41:01ftes would be anything that would be regarding
    • 00:41:05the planning or the transmission planning. Is that correct?
    • 00:41:08I don't think I can speak directly to your question. The IA
    • 00:41:12identifies the resources that are needed for the effort. So our
    • 00:41:16budget process is much larger than just.
    • 00:41:19And how we use headcount isn't defined by specific IA.
    • 00:41:23Okay, thank you,
    • 00:41:27Corey. Thank you for that, too.
    • 00:41:36Okay, any other thoughts or questions?
    • 00:41:39We had a motion by Rob in a second by Eric,
    • 00:41:45and this would be. Thank you, Corey. To endorse and
    • 00:41:48forwards TAC the September 12 PRS report and the
    • 00:41:53October 16. I don't know why that looked funny to me. October 16,
    • 00:41:57IA for 1180.
    • 00:42:00Okay, Corey.
    • 00:42:05Alrighty. On that motion, we will start up with consumers
    • 00:42:08with Eric. Yes, thank you, Mark.
    • 00:42:11Yes, thank you, Corey. Thank you. Mark Smith.
    • 00:42:20Yes, thanks, sir.
    • 00:42:23Melissa? Yes, thank you. Thank you.
    • 00:42:27Onto the co ops. Lucas.
    • 00:42:39Lucas, you with us? I can take in the chat. If you're having audio issues.
    • 00:42:45I don't see him. I see him in the list. He's still on
    • 00:42:49mute. I'll jump. How about Trevor? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
    • 00:42:53Eric Blakey. Yes. Thank you.
    • 00:42:56Thank you. Okay, I got you in chat, Lucas. Thank you.
    • 00:43:00Onto our independent generators.
    • 00:43:03And he's not with us today, right? Correct.
    • 00:43:09How about Caitlin?
    • 00:43:17Yes, sorry. Gotcha. Thank you. Bob Helton.
    • 00:43:27Same Bob with his shit about
    • 00:43:30Alex. Yes, thank you.
    • 00:43:35David Mendham was with a shed. Either same.
    • 00:43:42Move on to our ipms. John Barnell.
    • 00:43:45Yes, thanks, sir. Under our ireps bill.
    • 00:43:49Yes. Thank you. Aaron.
    • 00:43:54Sure. Aaron's with us yet seeing
    • 00:43:58him on the list under IOU is Martha.
    • 00:44:01Yes. Thank you. Rob. Yes.
    • 00:44:05Thank you. Jim. Yes. Thanks.
    • 00:44:07Corey. Thank you.
    • 00:44:11Onto the Munis. Diana. Yes. Thank you.
    • 00:44:14Ashley. Yes. Thank you. Anne Fei.
    • 00:44:17Yes. Thank you. I guess that
    • 00:44:20could have been a combo. Unanimous. Thank you all.
    • 00:44:24Thank you. Cory might
    • 00:44:29vote to yes on that one. I was having audio problems.
    • 00:44:37Who was that? David Mindham.
    • 00:44:41I just joined. I'm sorry. It was a yes for me, too.
    • 00:44:44Okay, thank you.
    • Clip 5.2 - NPRR1239, Access to Market Information
      00:44:53 Okay, so that takes us to 1239
    • Clip 5.3 - NPRR1240, Access to Transmission Planning Information
      00:44:59 and 1240. I believe we had a request to table
    • 00:45:03both of these ias so we could take some time to
    • 00:45:06reevaluate it, maybe have a potential to have revised
    • 00:45:10ias for November. Troy, did you want to speak to that?
    • 00:45:16Sure. Just real briefly, as I was doing my prep for
    • 00:45:19today, I happened to talk to
    • 00:45:24one of the architecture folks in it, and I.
    • 00:45:28We kind of realized right away that there's some potential to leverage this
    • 00:45:31with an internal public API project we have coming up.
    • 00:45:35And so we thought rather than just push this through at
    • 00:45:38its current cost with a post RTC priority,
    • 00:45:42we would benefit from four weeks to think about
    • 00:45:46those factors and see whether that would result in revised ias
    • 00:45:49or not. So, and we still be on track for a December board.
    • 00:45:53So that's why I thought it would be optimal to table and
    • 00:45:57take a quick look. Okay, any thoughts or
    • 00:46:00comments for Troy? Okay, so we'll
    • 00:46:03just leave those tabled. Do we need to do
    • 00:46:06anything? Well, I'll put a motion to table each one of those on the combo
    • 00:46:09ballot if it's okay with them. They're officially here for IA review.
    • 00:46:13But to Troy's point, if we take a motion to table both of those,
    • 00:46:16we'll hopefully come back next month, potentially with revised ias for those.
    • 00:46:20Okay, great. So if everybody is amenable, we'll add 1239
    • 00:46:24and 1240 to the combo ballot, leave them tabled. For a month and
    • 00:46:28have Troy come back with revised ias.
    • 00:46:32That sounds okay to everybody.
    • 00:46:35Okay, that takes
    • Clip 5.4 - NPRR1245, Additional Clarifying Revisions to Real-Time Co-Optimization
      00:46:39us to 1245 last. This is
    • 00:46:43coming to us from ERCOT. Last month, we voted approval of
    • 00:46:47this, as amended by the September 5 ERCOT
    • 00:46:51comments. And we had some on the spot revisions by PRS.
    • 00:46:55This doesn't have any costs associated with this change. Looks like
    • 00:46:59it might be another good one for the comma ballot. Unless anybody has
    • 00:47:03any thoughts or questions.
    • 00:47:06Okay, so Corey will add 1245 as well.
    • Clip 5.5 - NPRR1248, Correction to NPRR1197, Optional Exclusion of Load from Netting at EPS Metering Facilities which Include Resources
      00:47:11 1248 also comes to us from ERCOT. This was
    • 00:47:17an administrative and nature change. Corey, I don't know if you wanted to
    • 00:47:20have any comments on 1248.
    • 00:47:23It was just capturing some language that I forgot to capture my
    • 00:47:26screw up on 1197. Thank you for taking the
    • 00:47:30opportunity to call me out once again. I do deserve it. No, you.
    • 00:47:33Yeah. This is just aligning with what 1197 was intending to do and
    • 00:47:37the action that PRS took back in February on 1197.
    • 00:47:40So, yeah, no impact. Just doing what y'all were trying to do in the first
    • 00:47:43place. Perfect. Thank. Go ahead, Bob. Wait a minute. Did I just
    • 00:47:47hear that Corey made a mistake? I know. It's very undead.
    • 00:47:50This is. This may be a first. I know
    • 00:47:55Mister Goff pointed that out as well last month. We don't know if it's a
    • 00:47:58trend right now. It's only one data point, so we'll keep an
    • 00:48:01eye on it. Thank you, Corey.
    • 00:48:04You always do an amazing job. We just always
    • 00:48:08forget your past mistakes.
    • 00:48:11Then aren't I doing my job well?
    • 00:48:15Okay, so we'll add 1248 to the comma ballot unless anybody has any
    • 00:48:19thoughts or concerns on that. And then finally,
    • Clip 5.6 - NPRR1249, Publication of Shift Factors for All Active Transmission Constraints in the RTM
      00:48:22we have 1249. That is coming to us from Mister Steve
    • 00:48:26Reedy. We unanimously recommended approval last month,
    • 00:48:30and the cost impact on this one,
    • 00:48:33Corey has on the screen between $25,000 and $45,000
    • 00:48:37with a duration of three to five months. Go ahead, Eric.
    • 00:48:40This is the category of NPRR.
    • 00:48:44We wanted to see what the IA was, and the IA is satisfactory.
    • 00:48:48And so I'm happy for this to be in the combo ballot. Thank you,
    • 00:48:51Eric. Any other thoughts or comments?
    • 00:48:55Okay, we'll add 1249 to the combo ballot.
    • 00:49:01Okay, so this takes us to the sea of
    • 00:49:05tabled items. And I'm gonna go through a couple of these
    • 00:49:09just so we have some daylight
    • 00:49:13into some of these that may have a little bit more
    • Clip 6.01 - NPRR956, Designation of Providers of Transmission Additions
      00:49:19length on them than others. So, 956. I filed
    • 00:49:22to raise this last month, but I just wanted to let folks know that I
    • 00:49:26reached out to Nathan Bigby on this item.
    • 00:49:28And since it's one of our oldest,
    • 00:49:31NPRR's, it's still on the list and just touching base.
    • 00:49:35And ERCOT is continuing to monitor that
    • 00:49:39ongoing litigation with the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1938.
    • 00:49:43And because they're still watching this and we're waiting to see what
    • 00:49:46final judicial determination requires.
    • 00:49:49Otherwise, we're going to keep 956 on the tabled items.
    • 00:49:53There was some question on whether or not we needed to withdraw this or maybe
    • 00:49:57redo this whenever that final decision is made.
    • 00:50:00And I believe the intent at this time is just to leave it as is
    • 00:50:04and tabled. And ERCOT will continue monitoring.
    • 00:50:07And if we have any other decisions,
    • 00:50:12raise that at that time.
    • 00:50:15Okay,
    • Clip 6.02 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
      00:50:19 1070, this is another one that is actually a
    • 00:50:22very old one. And I reached out to
    • 00:50:26EDF on this one just to see where we were.
    • 00:50:29I know that there was some conversation with
    • 00:50:321070 and what we wanted to accomplish.
    • 00:50:36And I think that there is a. Some conversation
    • 00:50:40now that we are looking at NPRR1247
    • 00:50:44that we'll raise here in just a few minutes. But just know
    • 00:50:47that there is some conversation that's going on between
    • 00:50:52what 1247 covers and what 1070 originally
    • 00:50:56intended to cover. So conversations are continuing on that one, just to let
    • 00:51:00folks know. Yes, Eric, one of the things
    • 00:51:03on 1070 that has made
    • 00:51:07me comfortable keeping it on the table, although maybe it'll get resolved,
    • 00:51:10is I think this was a market monitor recommendation from
    • 00:51:14two or three or four years ago. And so
    • 00:51:19if we withdraw it or change it, I just
    • 00:51:22like to hear from them as part of that process. I know they've changed staff
    • 00:51:25during that time, but.
    • 00:51:28Okay. Okay.
    • 00:51:31And let me be clear. I think they mentioned the
    • 00:51:36NPRR resolve some issues they had, but they weren't necessarily endorsing
    • 00:51:41the NPRR, I think. I don't remember the details. It's been so long. Yeah.
    • 00:51:45Okay. Good to know, Eric. Thank you.
    • 00:51:49Okay. And then 1200,
    • Clip 6.03 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
      00:51:55NPRR1200. This is coming to us
    • 00:51:59from Nextera. There has been some discussion.
    • 00:52:03This was. It's kind of.
    • 00:52:07It's older, but it was tabled at WMS. It's pending the metering
    • 00:52:11working group. I'm not sure when the next metering working group is,
    • 00:52:15but NPRR1200 seems to be trying to
    • 00:52:19achieve the same objectives as SMOGRR028. And at
    • 00:52:23the last ERCOT board, there was some conversation about SMOGRR028.
    • 00:52:28 And so the ERCOT update to the board
    • 00:52:31is that ERCOT is working with the
    • 00:52:36market participant to develop comments for that metering working group.
    • 00:52:39And so hopefully, we'll have that meeting in the
    • 00:52:43near future and we'll have some more conversation and move that change a little
    • 00:52:46bit further down the road. Yeah, I'll just add, I believe
    • 00:52:50the metering working group hasn't met in a while,
    • 00:52:54but I think they're waiting, kind of, to see the next
    • 00:52:58development comments. Okay.
    • 00:53:02Thank you, Eric. I do think they preferred Smaugger
    • 00:53:0528, was my understanding, so. Okay.
    • 00:53:08But they're kind of waiting to hear the next step.
    • 00:53:11That makes sense. See what, what's in writing. Always helpful.
    • 00:53:17Okay, so that takes us to 1202 refundable deposits
    • Clip 6.04 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
      00:53:21for a large lodge. Interconnection studies. It comes to us from landsium.
    • 00:53:25There has been some
    • 00:53:29comments that were filed this week by ERCOT,
    • 00:53:33and those were in
    • 00:53:38response to some longhorn comments that were filed earlier in October.
    • 00:53:42And so I wanted to see if ERCOT wanted to speak to those or
    • 00:53:46raise those at all, and then see if Longhorn power
    • 00:53:50wanted to talk to those comments as well,
    • 00:53:56since Longhorn filed theirs first. Do I get
    • 00:53:59to go first? Sure, you go. Could we pull up the presentation?
    • 00:54:08Okay, so you will see. And this ties back really
    • 00:54:11well to the conversation we had a little while ago.
    • 00:54:16I have revised the header on 1202.
    • 00:54:19It is now fees for large load and generation interconnections.
    • 00:54:24Next slide, please. The goal
    • 00:54:27is simple. We are trying to accelerate the process of getting generation
    • 00:54:31and load connected to the system.
    • 00:54:35Time is money for these guys, and it's a lot of money.
    • 00:54:38Okay. The bottleneck is getting the
    • 00:54:41studies approved by both TDSP and ERCOT.
    • 00:54:45I can't do anything on the TD's side that's at the commission
    • 00:54:49and tariff related and all of that. But on the ERCOT
    • 00:54:53side, resource integration engineers have significantly
    • 00:54:57more project than other isos who are looking
    • 00:55:00at similar things.
    • 00:55:04The projects impact well beyond just resource
    • 00:55:07integration, as we just saw by ERCOT's request for 11.8
    • 00:55:12new ftes on NPRR1180, which is really
    • 00:55:16what this is targeted at.
    • 00:55:18Solution to this seems fairly straightforward.
    • 00:55:22We charge a user fee to those guys that
    • 00:55:26are connecting load or generation to the system,
    • 00:55:31refer back to the goal. I don't care how we do that.
    • 00:55:35The goal is to get these studies done as quickly
    • 00:55:38as possible. ERCOT also needs some systems that
    • 00:55:42the end user can access to see where their project
    • 00:55:45is hung up. There seems to be a significant
    • 00:55:49lack of automation within the ERCOT systems to make
    • 00:55:52that happen. Those systems cost money as
    • 00:55:55well. We use the ERCOT fee like
    • 00:55:59we just suggested in 1180. Those costs are going to
    • 00:56:02grandma and a bunch of other people on the system.
    • 00:56:071202 proposes to put those fees on
    • 00:56:11the people benefiting from those. Those studies.
    • 00:56:15You've heard from, the loads you've heard from the generators,
    • 00:56:19everybody's in agreement. The fees, as I have proposed them,
    • 00:56:22are not irrational. It's $25,000 and $5,000
    • 00:56:27a quarter afterwards. Again,
    • 00:56:30refer back to the goal.
    • 00:56:34Next slide, please.
    • 00:56:38So the loads and the generations have money,
    • 00:56:42they're willing to spend it to get their projects online
    • 00:56:45faster. That is the key. If them spending
    • 00:56:49extra money is just going into the ERCOT pool and
    • 00:56:52not actually funding projects and people
    • 00:56:56related to getting those things online faster,
    • 00:57:00that's not what we're trying to sign up for. We're saying we're willing to pay,
    • 00:57:03but we want ERCOT to get the resources to do
    • 00:57:06it. The fact that these projects are slowing
    • 00:57:10down is impacting the economic development of the state.
    • 00:57:14When these projects come online, there's people that come with these projects,
    • 00:57:18whether they're a load or a generation. We got to
    • 00:57:22go hire more people. We are slowing down the economics of this
    • 00:57:25state. We have people willing to give you money to do
    • 00:57:29this top
    • 00:57:33bullet. We are trying to help ERCOT. Let us help you.
    • 00:57:38If this is not the fix, fine.
    • 00:57:41But what can we do today to accelerate
    • 00:57:45the projects already in the backlog? We're not even talking about the new
    • 00:57:49stuff yet. This is just stuff in the background that's
    • 00:57:52already out there, okay? We're not talking
    • 00:57:55about picking winners and losers. We want to move everything
    • 00:57:59in the queue faster. Okay?
    • 00:58:02And we want to do that without hurting grandma.
    • 00:58:06In my earlier career, some of you may not know, but I was TAC.
    • 00:58:10Residential representative.
    • 00:58:14Those things stick with you over time.
    • 00:58:18ERCOT help us help you. All right,
    • 00:58:22I'm done.
    • 00:58:26And just for clarity, I don't think it's appropriate to move this forward today.
    • 00:58:30I'm not looking to move this forward today. I think there's a bunch
    • 00:58:33more conversations that need to happen, but we
    • 00:58:37need to have those conversations.
    • 00:58:40Thank you. Bob. Bob Helton,
    • 00:58:50you may be double muted. Bob? Bob, if you're talking, we can't hear
    • 00:58:54you.
    • 00:58:58Okay, Bob, while you figure that out, I'm going to go to Bill Barnes.
    • 00:59:04Thanks. Well, we appreciate the out
    • 00:59:08of the box proposal by long loan power on this, and we think it's a
    • 00:59:11pretty good idea, actually. It's something we've needed
    • 00:59:15probably in the generation interconnection queue for a long
    • 00:59:18time, and that is to increase discipline in
    • 00:59:22the projects that are submitted. In terms of the
    • 00:59:25amount of the fees, I think PJM, the equivalent
    • 00:59:29is over 100,000. That's a lot higher. And then
    • 00:59:33on the load side, we find ourselves in a situation
    • 00:59:37where there's pretty significant uncertainty in terms of
    • 00:59:41this prospective new load, and this would help provide discipline
    • 00:59:44in that queue. We think it's a pretty simple approach that would be effective.
    • 00:59:48We're supportive of it. Thanks. Thank you.
    • 00:59:53This is on the WMSWG meeting
    • 00:59:57schedule for Friday, so we'll have more conversation
    • 01:00:00there for sure. But we wanted just
    • 01:00:04to at least raise it so folks are aware.
    • 01:00:10All right, Bill Barnes from ERCOT.
    • 01:00:14We did file some comments and response.
    • 01:00:20I've been traveling a little bit, so I haven't had a chance to actually see
    • 01:00:24them until just after they got posted because
    • 01:00:28we were working on them pretty close to the deadline here to get
    • 01:00:32them posted. I think what we
    • 01:00:37are also trying to make sure that we go
    • 01:00:40as quickly as possible on the projects that we have in the
    • 01:00:43queue right now. I guess one of the things I will say is I think
    • 01:00:46we've been successful, but I know
    • 01:00:50that folks would like to see us do the, do better than that.
    • 01:00:54But we have been highlighted as one of the faster
    • 01:00:58interconnections in all of United States.
    • 01:01:02So, but we understand that time is
    • 01:01:05money and we, we get that point, too. So I
    • 01:01:09think the discussion is fine to have because it does have
    • 01:01:13impact to everybody and we would always like
    • 01:01:16to have additional staff to be able to get these things through. So I don't
    • 01:01:20want to have these comments sound like we're against some of the ideas
    • 01:01:24there. What we tried to do in the first part of this was
    • 01:01:28to just explain some of the things that we feel are very important to
    • 01:01:31get going and get moving forward in the current proposed language,
    • 01:01:36which we think address a few of the issues that are raised.
    • 01:01:40And so that's what the first part of this comment talks about.
    • 01:01:44And so with regard to some of the stale projects,
    • 01:01:48that was one of the first things that I think we got from the large
    • 01:01:51load task force was, you know, it didn't really
    • 01:01:54cost anything. You can get into the queue and you're never cleaned
    • 01:01:57out. So we did take that and we put that in the
    • 01:02:01planning guide revision, that if folks go through this process,
    • 01:02:05at some point, if they don't move forward and sign agreements,
    • 01:02:09they would be removed from the queue.
    • 01:02:13So there is some process that we
    • 01:02:16did to try to address some of the concerns that folks had brought up
    • 01:02:20and we wanted to highlight that. I think
    • 01:02:24there's another concept in this
    • 01:02:28proposal, which is a recurring fee,
    • 01:02:31and I'm not certain if our comments
    • 01:02:35are clear enough on that. But what we're saying is that that's a potentially
    • 01:02:40something that we could do, and I don't
    • 01:02:43think we're necessarily opposed to it. We just might, we might
    • 01:02:47have to do some work to come up with what that
    • 01:02:50recurring fee would be because we're bound to
    • 01:02:55make those fees based on our cost. We can't,
    • 01:02:59you know, just come up with a number and say that that looks good.
    • 01:03:02We'll have to justify it when we go up to the board as far as
    • 01:03:05getting the fees approved, and we did put a $14,000
    • 01:03:10fee in the planning guide revision.
    • 01:03:14But AG and his team are reviewing
    • 01:03:18all of our fees because we have
    • 01:03:21seen with all the extra projects, a lot more activity where
    • 01:03:24we're having to have a lot more meetings and coordination type
    • 01:03:27calls and things like that. So when we did this,
    • 01:03:31I think our queue of generation interconnection was
    • 01:03:35somewhere around 1100, and we're now around 2000
    • 01:03:40just on generation interconnection. And I think we had about 70 large
    • 01:03:44load and we're now somewhere over 200.
    • 01:03:46So yes, we do have a lot of impacts that
    • 01:03:51we are seeing. So we're going to go evaluate our fees
    • 01:03:54to see if we need to make some adjustments to account for
    • 01:03:58those in our next budget cycle, too. So you may
    • 01:04:02see some of those adjustments get filed
    • 01:04:06once we get the analysis done. But we're not
    • 01:04:09against a recurring fee, especially if there's going to be projects
    • 01:04:12where we have to do some extra work. We just don't know
    • 01:04:16how we would account for that quite yet. So I didn't want to shoot that
    • 01:04:21idea down. And I don't think we have in other comments that we have filed
    • 01:04:25in the past, and then as far as the,
    • 01:04:29you know, direct relationship to the fee
    • 01:04:32and how it affects the staffing, I don't,
    • 01:04:36I don't think I'm prepared to speak on
    • 01:04:40that. I think that'd probably be more kind of in Richard's area if you
    • 01:04:44wanted to comment about the budgeting process. But,
    • 01:04:47so I think we're open to some
    • 01:04:51of that, what is suggested here as a concept.
    • 01:04:55But we'd kind of like to see our revisions go
    • 01:04:58through so that we could do the analysis and see what other measures
    • 01:05:03we need to take as far as fees.
    • 01:05:07That's it. Thank you, Bill.
    • 01:05:11And I see that y'all were up for Friday as well for the Longhorn
    • 01:05:15comments and for ERCOT comments at WMS. So we'll
    • 01:05:19look forward to those conversations. Did you have something else? Let me let
    • 01:05:23me see. Bob Helton, is your double mute
    • 01:05:26working for you now?
    • 01:05:31Okay, we'll pipe in when you can. Go ahead. Just one
    • 01:05:35issue on the recurring fee, Bill. I mean, that that
    • 01:05:39is going to be problematic, because one of the things we want to make sure
    • 01:05:43of is that one, ERCOT's got to
    • 01:05:46have the staff to process this stuff timely.
    • 01:05:50Right. If we're charging people a quarterly
    • 01:05:53fee going forward, we need to make sure ERCOT
    • 01:05:57is not the holdup why that project is
    • 01:06:00moving forward. So that recurring fee,
    • 01:06:03admittedly, there are problems with that, and that's why
    • 01:06:07I'm not looking to push this. We need to talk through if
    • 01:06:11the recurring fee makes sense or if just a higher upfront
    • 01:06:15fee does. I like the recurring fee because it tends
    • 01:06:19to remind people they need to write a check to ERCOT. But also,
    • 01:06:24I think in the end, we need to hold ERCOT's feet to the fire,
    • 01:06:28that if you are the cause for them not being
    • 01:06:32able to proceed, they shouldn't have to pay that fee.
    • 01:06:36But we really need to figure out why ERCOT is
    • 01:06:39the bottleneck in that and get that resolved. So that
    • 01:06:43is definitely tricky, how we would do a quarterly fee
    • 01:06:46sort of thing. So I completely understand where you're coming from.
    • 01:06:50And, yes, to ERCOT's credit, we are the fastest
    • 01:06:54interconnection to get things connected to.
    • 01:06:57But I don't think we completely appreciate the millions of dollars
    • 01:07:01a day that are being lost. Because,
    • 01:07:05I mean, in 100 projects per engineer,
    • 01:07:10that is minutes per week per
    • 01:07:14project, not hours per week, but minutes
    • 01:07:19per week. We need to be able to do better than that. We need
    • 01:07:23your people, one, they should be able to take a vacation.
    • 01:07:27And two, I don't care if this
    • 01:07:30is a training program that we do when we send a bunch
    • 01:07:34of people through. I don't care if we go get people from
    • 01:07:38contractors and put on an education system,
    • 01:07:42just trying to accelerate the process, whatever that
    • 01:07:45takes. Stakeholders are willing to put up
    • 01:07:49money to accelerate the process. There has to be a
    • 01:07:53way to make this work, particularly in light of what we
    • 01:07:56just saw with 1180, which I think touches many of the
    • 01:08:00same people that I was looking at here. So we'll
    • 01:08:04talk about it tomorrow.
    • 01:08:09Okay, great. Thank you all so much.
    • 01:08:13Okay, so that takes us to 1214.
    • Clip 6.05 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
      01:08:16 This item was discussed at CMWG earlier this week.
    • 01:08:20There were some joint comments proposing some adjustments to
    • 01:08:24the RTO, RDPA,
    • 01:08:27I believe Preston is. Their goal is to file some comments in time
    • 01:08:31for WMS consideration next month. So there's still
    • 01:08:35some movement there. And so we should still. We should maybe see some
    • 01:08:40updates next month on 1214.
    • 01:08:43All right, so 1226.
    • Clip 6.06 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
      01:08:49 I wanted to raise this for awareness. There have
    • 01:08:53been a few conversations that
    • 01:08:56I've had with the sponsors of 1226 and also with ERCOT.
    • 01:09:00Last month, we had ERCOT come and give us a presentation on how
    • 01:09:04stakeholders can ask ERCOT for
    • 01:09:08dashboards or items that are on the website
    • 01:09:12and available that may not be there for information that they feel like is
    • 01:09:16needed. 1226. Washington approved at WMS
    • 01:09:20for the concept, and there has been some support on
    • 01:09:231226. One of the roadblocks that we're trying to
    • 01:09:27work through right now is ERCOT is
    • 01:09:31working on an official process instead
    • 01:09:34of maybe a system change request or a revision request or sending
    • 01:09:38it to an email where Eric
    • 01:09:42Goff might send an email to someone and nobody else knows that the email was
    • 01:09:45sent. And maybe that was a good idea, and somebody's like, hey, that's a really
    • 01:09:48good idea. How do we share that information? And so one
    • 01:09:52of the things that ERCOT and I were discussing is how
    • 01:09:56do we make the optionality of 1226
    • 01:10:00more feasible? And so while we're working with interim
    • 01:10:04processes and trying to figure out how
    • 01:10:08to obtain this information, how do we make that happen? And one
    • 01:10:12of the suggestions we had is perhaps taking
    • 01:10:16this to the technology working group and see if
    • 01:10:19there are some conversations that we could have there to keep the conversation
    • 01:10:23going. We don't want the proposal
    • 01:10:27to stall. We feel like it's a good idea. There needs to
    • 01:10:31be an easier way for market participants to be able
    • 01:10:35to express a need for this, but we also need
    • 01:10:38to work within the parameters of, you know, they're still working on a process.
    • 01:10:42And so for 1226, we're going
    • 01:10:46to have technology working group on the 21st.
    • 01:10:49And so this will be one of the first conversations that we have on maybe
    • 01:10:54working around some of the restrictions that we have right now
    • 01:10:58while still having feedback from the market participants so they
    • 01:11:01feel like they're being heard, because, you know, it's important for us to see what
    • 01:11:05people's suggestions and ideas are while also simultaneously
    • 01:11:08working within ERCOT's parameters that
    • 01:11:11they're trying to solidify at this point. Mark Patterson,
    • 01:11:15I know you're on the phone. I don't mean to put you on blast,
    • 01:11:17but if I misspoke on anything about, please feel free to correct me.
    • 01:11:22No, Diana, agree 100% with what you
    • 01:11:25said. Thank you. All right. Okay,
    • 01:11:28so more to come on 1226
    • 01:11:3729. We had some comments by stack after
    • 01:11:41our last PRS meeting.
    • 01:11:45Conversations are still going on there.
    • 01:11:51Mark, I'm sorry I missed you. Go ahead. I think your comment was in relation
    • 01:11:55to 1226. Yes. I just wanted to
    • 01:11:59add that I think it's important that if we
    • 01:12:02send this to the technology working group, at least we
    • 01:12:06need the ERCOT staff to not delay
    • 01:12:10coming out with what their proposed procedure for this type of.
    • 01:12:14For adding a dashboard would be. So I'm
    • 01:12:18hoping that that would be something that the ERCOT staff can come back
    • 01:12:21with next month.
    • 01:12:25It's important to
    • 01:12:30us that whatever procedure is adopted, that it not just be
    • 01:12:33totally at the discretion of ERCOT, but that there be some
    • 01:12:37process for discussion, vote by
    • 01:12:41stakeholders, and then appeal
    • 01:12:45the opportunity to appeal.
    • 01:12:49Thank you, Mark. I know that the
    • 01:12:53process internally, and I'm not going to speak for ERCOT, but the internal
    • 01:12:57process for may take a little bit longer than one meeting. But we'll definitely
    • 01:13:00have some update on it and we'll work offline in the interim
    • 01:13:04and see just to make sure that this is. The conversation is
    • 01:13:08continuing. All right, thanks.
    • 01:13:14Okay.
    • 01:13:19Okay, so where were we?
    • 01:13:221229.
    • Clip 6.07 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
      01:13:26 So this is an NPRR that comes to us from stack.
    • 01:13:30There were some comments that were filed after
    • 01:13:34our last PRS and Lucas Turner
    • 01:13:37filed comments to address some items that ERCOT had requested
    • 01:13:41clarifications on. Lucas, I don't know if you are prepared
    • 01:13:44to speak to that, but just so folks are aware that there is some more
    • 01:13:47conversation that are. That's going on for 1229
    • 01:13:51as well.
    • 01:13:57Okay. And then 1234.
    • Clip 6.08 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
      01:14:01 There were some comments that were filed by the still mills.
    • 01:14:05And then yesterday, the planning working group also reviewed
    • 01:14:09PGRR 15. And I. I believe ERCOT is planning
    • 01:14:13to file comments before the next planning working group.
    • 01:14:16So 1234 is very much still
    • 01:14:19in process.
    • Clip 6.09 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
      01:14:24 1235, this has
    • 01:14:27had a lot of conversation. We have had a lot of activity
    • 01:14:32since our last PRS meeting. Luminant had
    • 01:14:35filed comments, advanced power alliance filed comments.
    • 01:14:38WMS also discussed this earlier in the month. They did
    • 01:14:42not vote on this item. There's, I believe, three issues that they're working
    • 01:14:46on. And so it's left tabled at WMS for another
    • 01:14:49month to allow Saag to continue conversation on those three items.
    • 01:14:53And so we may have some more conversation
    • 01:14:57on 1235 next month.
    • Clip 6.10 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
      01:15:03I think we also had some ERCOT comments on 1235. So conversations
    • 01:15:07are still going on this 1238.
    • 01:15:12I don't believe this is ready for a vote, but I think this is
    • 01:15:16a good conversation.
    • 01:15:19We've talked about 1238 a lot at OWG
    • 01:15:24and conversations are still ongoing. I know
    • 01:15:28that there were some questions that were
    • 01:15:33discussed as far as, you know, the minimum cap
    • 01:15:38requirements and some of the nuances that were involved in
    • 01:15:411238. And I don't know if anybody had any thoughts or questions
    • 01:15:45that they wanted to raise for discussion on 1238.
    • 01:15:50Okay, so we'll keep those going at OWG and
    • 01:15:55see what comes out of those conversations.
    • 01:16:04Let's skip down unless somebody wants me to stop on anything
    • 01:16:08else.
    • Clip 6.15 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects
      01:16:111247. There were comments
    • 01:16:15by ERCOT and PLWG discussed
    • 01:16:19this yesterday. So last month, ERCOT posted a draft white paper,
    • 01:16:23and there were several comments on that white paper for
    • 01:16:271247. And the recent board of directors
    • 01:16:30urged us moving forward. And I. There's also a special planning
    • 01:16:34working group on the 29th to try to reach consensus before
    • 01:16:38the November PRS. And so I wanted to raise this and see if we had
    • 01:16:42any thoughts on this. Go ahead, Bill.
    • Clip 6.13 - NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities
      01:16:48 I'm actually in the queue for 1243, which I believe
    • 01:16:52is ready to go and would
    • 01:16:57like to suggest either a combo ballot or make a motion to approve
    • 01:17:00the most recent version, followed by Oncor on
    • 01:17:04October 14 for approval.
    • 01:17:08Okay, so on.
    • 01:17:12And really appreciate ERCOT legal working with us
    • 01:17:16on a reasonable solution for all.
    • 01:17:19Okay, how does everybody feel about 1243 on
    • 01:17:22the combo ballot? Is that something that needs.
    • 01:17:27Go ahead, Eric. I think the changes that
    • 01:17:31are in those comments are good and good for the combo ballot.
    • 01:17:35It just. It's worth ERCOT being careful about how
    • 01:17:41they implement this in general, because there are
    • 01:17:45federal protections for this data.
    • 01:17:48And I think it can, you know, if done incorrectly,
    • 01:17:52involves, you know, even criminal liability. And so
    • 01:17:56ERCOT will just have to be cautious about releasing
    • 01:18:00stuff to agencies. But doing it under the federal power act,
    • 01:18:04as suggested by ERCOT, I think, falls well with them.
    • 01:18:08There's a couple of what they can do. Okay,
    • 01:18:11Martha,
    • 01:18:14to make it even more confusing, I was in the queue for 1247.
    • 01:18:18Bill took us backwards.
    • 01:18:21Yeah. So we filed comments on the NPRR after
    • 01:18:25a couple of discussions with the sponsors that were, I think, very productive.
    • 01:18:29And as Bill said, Oncor appreciates the work that Kennedy and others did on
    • 01:18:32this to help find a solution that still preserves a form of
    • 01:18:37notification of disclosure when ERCOT is disclosing
    • 01:18:40market participant generated ECEII and protected information
    • Clip 6.18 - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements
      01:18:44to other regulators. I was going to. I would mention,
    • 01:18:48though, if you're going, if you're taking inventory
    • 01:18:51on the table list, we're working on similar comments to
    • 01:18:551252 that I think can be filed by
    • 01:18:59Oncor for next month's PRS. They were somewhat dependent on
    • 01:19:03the outcome of 1243. There may be more of a deviation there
    • 01:19:07than I originally anticipated. But just for your record keeping purposes,
    • 01:19:11I think that we'll have something filed next month for that one and certainly
    • 01:19:14supportive of Bill's suggestion of putting twelve comments on
    • 01:19:18the combo ballot. Thanks. Okay, perfect.
    • 01:19:22Fei, is your comment on 1243?
    • 01:19:25Yes. Fei was hosting energy. We reviewed
    • 01:19:29the reliance on core comments. We think those are good comments and
    • 01:19:33we support those. However, our legal and compliance
    • 01:19:37are still reviewing this NPRR entirely.
    • 01:19:42So I think I would like to request it to be remain tabled
    • 01:19:46for one more month so that we will have like sufficient
    • 01:19:50time to do a sorrow review.
    • 01:19:55Okay. Is that okay with everyone if we leave it tabled for one
    • 01:19:59additional month? Okay,
    • 01:20:03thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we'll leave 1243 tabled
    • 01:20:07for one more month and we'll come back to this in November.
    • 01:20:18Okay, so we touched on 1247. Looks like we're going to have some
    • 01:20:21more special meetings and this will be a topic of conversation for November.
    • 01:20:26Ros, go ahead, Martha. Yeah, I did
    • 01:20:29just want to mention, I think you know this already, but there
    • 01:20:33was a lengthy discussion on this one yesterday at the PLWG.
    • 01:20:38They've scheduled a additional meeting later this month in the hopes that
    • 01:20:41it might be able to get a set of comments to Ross in November.
    • 01:20:45I did just kind of want to suggest that if that does
    • 01:20:48come to fruition and in November PRS
    • 01:20:53considers voting on the NPRR, we might also consider
    • 01:20:57revisiting the urgency request. I think this was a no impact ia
    • 01:21:01and so I don't really see a reason why it would need another month in
    • 01:21:05the process. I'm nothing not suggesting any action today, but just something for folks
    • 01:21:08to be thinking about to help it get to the December board if
    • 01:21:13the commenting process comes to a good solution in the next couple
    • 01:21:16of weeks. So that's all. Thanks. Thank you, Martha.
    • 01:21:21So we'll look forward to that special planning working group on the 29th
    • 01:21:24and hope that we can have that conversation at November. Ross?
    • Clip 6.16 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination
      01:21:30 Okay, so that takes us to 1250.
    • 01:21:34WMS voted to keep this tabled for another month. I believe there's
    • 01:21:37some different items that
    • 01:21:41they're working on for this one. Did anybody want to raise 1250 for a discussion?
    • 01:21:46Okay,
    • 01:21:481251. I'm sorry,
    • 01:21:51Corey Austin,
    • 01:21:55please go ahead. Thank you, Corey. I think is
    • 01:21:59Bob ahead of me? We can't get Bob's.
    • 01:22:04Have you got me yet? Oh, there he is. We've been
    • 01:22:07waiting for you, Bob. That's all right. Go ahead at the end.
    • 01:22:14So for Tom, I just wanted to give a heads up.
    • 01:22:19I'm not asking for anything today. We probably
    • 01:22:23will ask. So this is something for you all to think about. We probably will
    • 01:22:26ask for 1250 to get voted on and move along.
    • 01:22:30I think it was tabled at WMS last time. We're not in a critical
    • 01:22:34hurry now, but we would like that to be approved before the
    • 01:22:38termination date that NPRR really is just to comply
    • 01:22:43with the 1500 and the PUC rules.
    • 01:22:46So it's a policy change coming from
    • 01:22:50those. I think Eric asked for it to be tabled
    • 01:22:53because he has another concept
    • 01:22:57he wants to add
    • 01:23:03right now. Our preference would be for that to be in a separate NPRR,
    • 01:23:05and I think he's open to that. He just doesn't want to wait for this
    • 01:23:08to be approved before he can get his language worked on. So we're
    • 01:23:11working with Eric right now offline to see
    • 01:23:15if we can figure something out. And hopefully we can. And if we do,
    • 01:23:19I think we may ask for this to be voted on to in
    • 01:23:23the near future. So I just wanted to get that message out there.
    • 01:23:29Thank you, Austin. We appreciate it. Bob Helton.
    • 01:23:33Yeah, I hate to take us backwards to 1202.
    • 01:23:37Sorry for the problem. I don't know what it was,
    • 01:23:41but all I'm going to do is just on 1202 is say first. Number one,
    • 01:23:45Bill is right. Those guys are doing an amazing job with
    • 01:23:49the amount of work they have. And I would rather work with that team
    • 01:23:52than I would in many of the other, all of the other interconnects.
    • 01:23:56But, you know, they're getting deluged with things going
    • 01:24:00on. And once the TEF comes through, that's even going to be more.
    • 01:24:03So we're in the camp of anything we can do,
    • 01:24:07fees or whatever, to help get the
    • 01:24:10resources or outside resources for some period of time to
    • 01:24:14speed this up. That would be great with us.
    • 01:24:18We will be fully behind that. And that's really all I want to say.
    • 01:24:21Thank you. Thanks, Pop.
    • 01:24:25Bill Barnes. I was a little bit confused
    • 01:24:29on the discussion on 1250. I'm back on 1250. I don't
    • 01:24:33know where we are. Is there a reason
    • 01:24:36why we can't approve it today? Because with the clarifications and
    • 01:24:40the ERCOT comments that it won't become effective until
    • 01:24:44that date, certain we'd be willing to move it forward.
    • 01:24:49Sounds like you're waiting on approval to file what or to proceed with
    • 01:24:52what you want to do. So is there a reason why we're waiting? I'm happy
    • 01:24:56to try and explain that. First of all, Eric Joff, for this item on behalf
    • 01:24:59of the Texas Energy Buyers Alliance,
    • 01:25:03TeBA is working on proposed
    • 01:25:08changes to this section to allow for additional attributes on
    • 01:25:12certificates, such as the hour that it was produced, the fuel
    • 01:25:16type, other kinds of generators to earn similar
    • 01:25:20certificates that are touching
    • 01:25:24almost every section of the section
    • 01:25:27protocols. And so, given that ERCOT is okay
    • 01:25:31keeping it table, it might just administratively keep things
    • 01:25:35simpler if we can keep it on the table for one more month,
    • 01:25:38because otherwise we'll have to amend gray boxes
    • 01:25:42that are not yet in the protocols. So ERCOT and I are talking tomorrow morning
    • 01:25:46about the administrative procedure to handle this. And if they're okay keeping
    • 01:25:50on the table, I'd appreciate just doing that. We work that out.
    • 01:25:54And I believe WMS has that tabled as well. And I think y'all are
    • 01:25:58going to take that up in November. Is that correct, Eric? Yeah, that's what I
    • 01:26:01was going to ask. If you think you can bring this to WMS, we could
    • 01:26:05just approve it there and move it on. Yeah, I'm hoping that we can
    • 01:26:08get this all resolved in a happy fashion quickly,
    • 01:26:13but it's just a pretty extensive change.
    • 01:26:18But both of these are extensive changes to the same section.
    • 01:26:22So, like, for example, just to open
    • 01:26:25the hood as part of creating the solar RPS,
    • 01:26:31there's a term called an SREC now.
    • 01:26:35And so you have to modify every
    • 01:26:39instance of that. And so if we're both changing every use of that
    • 01:26:43term, it just gets complicated if we're trying to do two
    • 01:26:46things at the same time.
    • 01:26:52Okay, so it sounds like more to come on that one.
    • 01:26:59Sorry, go ahead. I didn't type in the chat. No, go ahead.
    • 01:27:03Yeah, I think it's fine to wait another month.
    • 01:27:06The end state I am shooting at is for to be two separate NPRRs.
    • 01:27:09But we'll see. We'll see where the conversation goes. But happy
    • 01:27:13to work. There's no need to rush
    • 01:27:17it through. I think we have some time to work with Eric and try to
    • 01:27:20get to a happy place like he says. Thanks.
    • 01:27:25That's always the goal, right? To get to a happy place.
    • 01:27:30Okay. Thank you, everybody. And then,
    • 01:27:33Martha, we have you noted on 1252.
    • 01:27:38I hope that's helpful. I know that sometimes we don't go through all of the
    • 01:27:42items on the table list, but sometimes some things are
    • 01:27:47a little bit more delayed than others. And so it's helpful to know that we're
    • 01:27:50still having those conversations. Corey is highlighting one that
    • 01:27:53I must have skipped over. Not necessarily. I just wanted to
    • Clip 6.14 - NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
      01:27:57bring it up. 1246 is the alignment
    • 01:28:00with single model era. You'll recall that in the current combo model
    • 01:28:04era, we were able to leverage a lot of generation resource language for our
    • 01:28:08batteries because you had to register as both a generation resource and a load resource.
    • 01:28:11So moving into the single model we've known all along,
    • 01:28:15we were going to need to go through and clean up a lot of instances
    • 01:28:17where leaning on generation resource won't apply anymore when an ESR is
    • 01:28:21its own separate, unique thing. So 1246 is part of a quartet.
    • 01:28:25There's a PGRR, a NOGRR and an OBDRR that go through an ad,
    • 01:28:30effectively slash ESR in dozens of places to make
    • 01:28:33sure that when we hit the single model, we don't lose battery
    • 01:28:38requirements that we've had for years. We didn't formally refer
    • 01:28:42this anywhere, but before we took it up, ROS filed comments asking
    • 01:28:45for it to be tabled along with the OBDRR, but they were also the
    • 01:28:50PGRR and NOGRR. This last ROS meeting,
    • 01:28:53they recommended approval of the PGRR and the NOGRR.
    • 01:28:56So I just wanted to bring it back to the group to say if we
    • 01:28:59were effectively waiting for ROS to be comfortable with their 50% of
    • 01:29:03the effort, they've now recommended approval. With the latest ERCOT
    • 01:29:07comments, we have similar ERCOT comments on NPRR1246,
    • 01:29:11so at least wanted to teed up for the group. Not to say you have
    • 01:29:14to follow what Ross did, but in so much as anyone was waiting for that,
    • 01:29:191246 might be ripe for some PRS action. No, thank you for
    • 01:29:22raising that, Corey. And we did have those comments that were proposing some changes
    • 01:29:26to the voltage support service payments and some other
    • 01:29:29ESR terminology.
    • 01:29:33And that conversation was at Ross earlier this month. How does everybody
    • 01:29:37feel about 1246 adding to the combo ballot
    • 01:29:41or getting some nodding of heads?
    • 01:29:45Okay, great. So let's add 1246 to the combo
    • 01:29:48ballot as well. Thank you, Corey. Thank you
    • 01:29:52so much.
    • 01:30:00Yes, sir, go ahead, Eric. Did I miss?
    • 01:30:03Did you say anything about 1235?
    • 01:30:07Did we? Let's see.
    • 01:30:12We talked about it just briefly, and then we went backwards. So there were
    • 01:30:16some comments that were filed, and I believe you all at
    • 01:30:20WMS tabled it to allow.
    • 01:30:23I guess I wanted to give an update. We had this table then referred
    • 01:30:27to SAWG and WMWG, and we've now consolidated
    • 01:30:31that discussion at SAWG.
    • 01:30:34This was discussed. I believe Caitlin mentioned it. I believe
    • 01:30:37in her report to the board.
    • 01:30:41You know, we continue to sometimes get to a
    • 01:30:45point where there's questions about policy,
    • 01:30:47and I worry
    • 01:30:51that, you know, things are getting bogged down a
    • 01:30:54little bit. This one in particular worries me
    • 01:30:58because it has a statutory deadline and I
    • 01:31:02worry that if people see that it's still
    • 01:31:06being tabled and that perhaps SAWG is trying to figure
    • 01:31:09out the policy direction, that that
    • 01:31:13kind of goes in line with this whole other
    • 01:31:16stakeholder discussion that we've been having with the
    • 01:31:20chairman saying, maybe we need to look at
    • 01:31:23some of this again. So I don't know if PRS can do anything about
    • 01:31:28any of that, but I just. I do
    • 01:31:31want to try to figure out a way to get
    • 01:31:35things to the board so that if the board needs to recommend
    • 01:31:40something to the PUC, like, hey, PUC, we're not sure
    • 01:31:44about your policy direction, but if we need
    • 01:31:47to move forward with a proposal
    • 01:31:51that addresses the legislation, I think
    • 01:31:54we ought to be, you know, trying to work
    • 01:31:58towards that goal instead of just continuing to
    • 01:32:02keep it tabled at SAWG. Because I don't know that that's a good
    • 01:32:06look for this piece of legislation. No,
    • 01:32:09thank you. And I know that ERCOT filed comments earlier this month
    • 01:32:13on 1235 as well.
    • 01:32:18Katie, thank you for that. So,
    • 01:32:21Eric, I feel like the comments that luminant filed in the presentation
    • 01:32:25that we made at Sagde made it clear what we thought the legislation
    • 01:32:29was intended to address. So we are taking every opportunity
    • 01:32:33to have dual pass. To the extent that we can file comments
    • 01:32:37on, say, the as report at the commission,
    • 01:32:40we are. To the extent we can talk to commission staff, commission, or the
    • 01:32:44commissioners themselves, we're availing ourselves of that effort. So we
    • 01:32:47are taking dual paths, but we do feel like we are trying
    • 01:32:51to address what the statute intended. So I do
    • 01:32:55not feel like we're holding up the discussion.
    • 01:32:59Thank you. Katie, John, Russ,
    • 01:33:03hi. Can you all hear me? Okay, we can hear you. Great.
    • 01:33:06Go ahead. Perfect. I know that
    • 01:33:09the issue that Vistra is trying
    • 01:33:13to address at PLWG, it's also being addressed in
    • 01:33:17the ancillary service rulemaking project,
    • 01:33:2055845. And so I
    • 01:33:24think that's probably the better venue to raise the issue. One of the questions is
    • 01:33:27specifically about whether drs should be an
    • 01:33:32operational tool or go towards
    • 01:33:38resource adequacy. So I don't think having
    • 01:33:41the conversation at PLWG is the right venue.
    • 01:33:45All right. Thank you, Katie. Two on
    • 01:33:49that. So if we're consolidating discussion at SAWG,
    • 01:33:52there's still also the issue of the last filed ERCOT
    • 01:33:56comments, which was taking the recommendation
    • 01:34:00of the IMm on the slope demand curve.
    • 01:34:03We are planning to file comments on that issue. So that issue needs to be
    • 01:34:07addressed somewhere. And then we are availing ourselves of the opportunity
    • 01:34:10to file comments on what I just suggested in that question
    • 01:34:14number five, but I don't think we're holding anything up to have one more discussion
    • 01:34:18to try to flush things out, especially since it's been consolidated.
    • 01:34:26Thank you all for that. Any other thoughts or questions on 1235?
    • 01:34:34Okay, sounds like we're going to have those conversations and
    • 01:34:40maybe be ready for next month's PRS vote.
    • 01:34:43Okay, thank you, everybody.
    • 01:34:52Anything else under the table? Items that maybe I missed or that we didn't raise
    • 01:34:56yet? Sure, go ahead,
    • 01:34:59Fei. Yeah, Fei, we saw the
    • 01:35:02energy. Sorry, I have to circle back on 1238.
    • 01:35:06We have some questions about the potential implementation
    • 01:35:10of these proposals and some compliance
    • 01:35:14related questions. Just wondering what
    • 01:35:18working group or subcommittee would be more suited for
    • 01:35:22those questions. For example, one of the question is it
    • 01:35:25would require 20% ramp rate limit when
    • 01:35:30those load come offline or connected back online.
    • 01:35:34So we want you to know which entity is responsible for
    • 01:35:37the compliance of this limitation. Is that load,
    • 01:35:41QSE, CTO, TSP, and also,
    • 01:35:46we also wanted to know, like, does ERCOT plan to exhaust 100%
    • 01:35:50of those registered load before declaring an EEA event?
    • 01:35:55It's implied by where it shows up on the
    • 01:35:58EEA operations procedures. However, we just
    • 01:36:02wanted a little bit more clarity on that. So,
    • 01:36:05just wondering, those questions, where would be
    • 01:36:08the most appropriate platform to ask?
    • 01:36:12I believe 1238 right now is at OWG.
    • 01:36:16And many of those conversations have been ongoing.
    • 01:36:19We send it to Ross and WMS. ROS passed it to OWG and WMS
    • 01:36:24passed it to WMWG. So there's at least two groups.
    • 01:36:27I'm not sure. I can't speak to the exact nature of the conversations,
    • 01:36:30but one of those two. So, Fei,
    • 01:36:33wmwg has it on the agenda for tomorrow,
    • 01:36:38and then I believe it's also up at the next owg.
    • 01:36:42Okay. Thank you. Sure.
    • 01:36:48All right. Who says tabled items
    • 01:36:52are not exciting and fun? See? Got this.
    • Clip 7 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
      01:36:56 Okay, so that takes us to section seven. We have three
    • 01:37:00new revision request language for consideration. The first
    • Clip 7.1 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP
      01:37:04one is 1253. It's coming to us from ampere power.
    • 01:37:08It is including wholesale storage load,
    • 01:37:12charging load to the data set for ERCOT via ICCP.
    • 01:37:16This is the first time that we've looked at this one.
    • 01:37:19We had comments. Thank you, corey.
    • 01:37:22By ERCOT.
    • 01:37:31Did ERCOT want to. Did anybody from ERCOT want to speak to these comments?
    • 01:37:35Mark, I'm putting you on blast again. Yeah. Thank you.
    • 01:37:39Can you hear me? I can hear you. Great. Please go ahead. All right.
    • 01:37:42Yeah. So I
    • 01:37:46think I presented this topic at WMS
    • 01:37:51A month ago, two months ago, had to do,
    • 01:37:54coming out of the issue that came up with
    • 01:37:58the June 4CP data. And then market
    • 01:38:02participants were,
    • 01:38:05well, Randy Robertson was brought in with ERCOT and he
    • 01:38:08went on a little bit of speaking tour to explain how the 4CP is
    • 01:38:12calculated. And what was determined is the
    • 01:38:17calculation takes out the
    • 01:38:22wholesale storage load. So market participants were concerned,
    • 01:38:26well, we need to have that information available to us. So I
    • 01:38:30got involved and determined that, well, we actually
    • 01:38:33don't have wholesale storage load per se as
    • 01:38:38a value coming into ERCOT. But what we do have is
    • 01:38:41the, the ESR charging
    • 01:38:45load, which currently is the only wholesale storage load
    • 01:38:49that we have in our system. So it seemed to be agreeable that
    • 01:38:53that could be used as a reasonable proxy to
    • 01:38:57the wholesale storage load if we could make that available.
    • 01:39:01And so working with NPRR felt
    • 01:39:04it was acceptable then to make this available via ICCP.
    • 01:39:08So that's what this NPRR is going to do.
    • 01:39:12We also made a few little edits to that section
    • 01:39:15of the protocols. Just.
    • 01:39:18And you'll read that it's primarily has to do with.
    • 01:39:22It infers that all the data in that section are prices,
    • 01:39:25which they're not. There's a combination of prices of megawatt
    • 01:39:30values, capacity values. So we just made
    • 01:39:33a slight edit to that to make sure that that whole section is
    • 01:39:36applying to data that's being posted to ICCP.
    • 01:39:43Thank you, Mark.
    • 01:39:47Okay, so what would
    • 01:39:50we like to do with 1253?
    • 01:39:54Go ahead, Eric. So I
    • 01:39:58think to do ICCP, you have to be a QSE.
    • 01:40:03But this section at the beginning of that
    • 01:40:08paragraph says that ERCOT posts all this
    • 01:40:11data in this paragraph to both ICCP
    • 01:40:15and the ERCOT website. And I just want to confirm that
    • 01:40:19maybe despite the title of the NPRR, would you follow
    • 01:40:23that whole sentence
    • 01:40:28that says ERCOT website and ICCP?
    • 01:40:35Wow. Actually. Thank you, Eric. This was brought up,
    • 01:40:39mentioned to me by Michael Jewell yesterday,
    • 01:40:42and I think we could interpret that within that section of the protocol.
    • 01:40:47It does say that we would post this also to.
    • 01:40:50I'm trying to scrolling to
    • 01:40:54ERCOT, the website. I think
    • 01:40:58from what I believe is the NPRR,
    • 01:41:02the way it's proposed here with the edits will
    • 01:41:06work. I think we would probably should just man comments.
    • 01:41:09Probably should be filed if you want it posted like via
    • 01:41:13also XML and maybe a CSV file, like we
    • 01:41:16do other things that probably ought to be edited
    • 01:41:21in the. In the upper section describing
    • 01:41:25the changes are being requested. So along those lines
    • 01:41:28are the other things here that are posted on the ERCOT website.
    • 01:41:32Are they posted in CSV and XML? Are they posted
    • 01:41:35in some other way? I.
    • 01:41:38I don't know if somebody else from ERCOT can answer that question. I don't.
    • 01:41:42I don't know.
    • 01:41:42Erich.
    • 01:41:48Michael Jewel.
    • 01:41:51Thank you, Diana. Do I get my double mute off? Yep, we can
    • 01:41:54hear you. Great. Go ahead. Awesome. Thank you.
    • 01:41:57So, following up on the discussion with Eric and Mark.
    • 01:42:02Yeah, we would definitely. Michael Jewel, on behalf of priority power,
    • 01:42:06we are actually working on filing some comments to do what Mark was
    • 01:42:10talking about. Just provide some additional clarity on
    • 01:42:14the provision of the XML and CSV files
    • 01:42:18and hope to get those in here in the next day or so. So I
    • 01:42:21apologize that they aren't already in.
    • 01:42:25Thank you, John. Russ.
    • 01:42:30Yeah. I appreciate this, NPRR. Obviously,
    • 01:42:34identifying the 4CP is a huge issue for my
    • 01:42:37members. I would appreciate if we could table
    • 01:42:41this one for a month. I want to talk. I just want to confirm with
    • 01:42:45members that this works for everyone and kind of to the
    • 01:42:49issues that Eric and Michael have raised, that the information is available to
    • 01:42:53even those that aren't or don't have QSEs or
    • 01:42:58don't have that type of relationship with their QSEs.
    • 01:43:01Thanks. Thank you, Martha.
    • 01:43:07Thank you. Just a question for Mark. Mark, I was wondering just
    • 01:43:11what kind of. How significant of an
    • 01:43:15effort this might be for ERCOT to provide it by ICCP.
    • 01:43:21My presumption from your comments, which are fairly minor, was that maybe this
    • 01:43:25isn't a big deal for ERCOT, but I was just curious if this is a
    • 01:43:27heavy lift or not. Well,
    • 01:43:31the data is already in our system, so it's not like we have to go
    • 01:43:34request additional data points.
    • 01:43:38I understand it's a pretty minor change. Now, that was
    • 01:43:42when we were talking about ICCP, if it gets
    • 01:43:46expanded to include XML and CSV files.
    • 01:43:51I can't answer to that because I just haven't spoke to anybody about that
    • 01:43:54yet. Okay. Thank you,
    • 01:44:01Michael.
    • 01:44:06Just a quick follow up. Yeah, sorry about that. Doubled up.
    • 01:44:10So, just following up on the question that Martha asked, and this is something Mark
    • 01:44:14and I were actually looking at yesterday, there actually is a location
    • 01:44:18of a CSV file with this data.
    • 01:44:21It's just in a spot that makes it difficult
    • 01:44:25for more regular checking. And so,
    • 01:44:29you know, at least the file is actually already there from a. From a CSV
    • 01:44:33perspective,
    • 01:44:36you just got to know where to go find it. It's actually on
    • 01:44:39the dashboard. You'll see three dots
    • 01:44:43up on the right, top right corner. And if you click on that,
    • 01:44:47you can open up a CSV file that has the data in it.
    • 01:44:58Thank you, Mark. That's helpful.
    • 01:45:02Okay, so it sounds like we have some comments and some more
    • 01:45:05conversation that's coming. How does everybody
    • 01:45:09feel about leaving it tabled here? Do we want to leave it tabled here?
    • 01:45:12And I don't know if we need it referred anywhere,
    • 01:45:15but just table here. Okay. So we can add
    • 01:45:18that to the combo ballot to table
    • 01:45:221253.
    • 01:45:26Okay.
    • Clip 7.2 - NPRR1254, Modeling Deadline for Initial Submission of Resource Registration Data
      01:45:311254 is coming to us from ERCOT. It's modeling deadline for
    • 01:45:34initial submission of resource registration data.
    • 01:45:40This is the first time we're seeing this one here. We had some comments by
    • 01:45:44ERCOT or, excuse me, the NPRR
    • 01:45:49by ERCOT.
    • 01:45:56Michael, are you in the queue for this one for 1254,
    • 01:46:01or is that the last one?
    • 01:46:06Okay. Okay. Did ERCOT want to speak
    • 01:46:09to this one at all? Go ahead.
    • 01:46:13Yeah. Good morning. This is ag Springer from ERCOT.
    • 01:46:16I just wanted to give a brief overview of this NPRR.
    • 01:46:19The concept is fairly simple and is
    • 01:46:25proposing to formalize something that is in the current resource interconnection
    • 01:46:29handbook as a recommendation.
    • 01:46:32But the recommendation is not related, having the
    • 01:46:37desired relief for our processing of resource registration data.
    • 01:46:41So essentially, this NPRR would modify section 310,
    • 01:46:44one, one of the protocols to require
    • 01:46:49an additional month review period for the submission of
    • 01:46:54initial resource registration data, as described in section
    • 01:46:59I think it's 681 of the planning guide.
    • 01:47:02So essentially, the initial submission of research registration
    • 01:47:06data for a new project is a large amount of data.
    • 01:47:10Oftentimes there are discrepancies or errors in the data that is submitted
    • 01:47:14into RIOO that need to be resolved before modeling work
    • 01:47:18can commence. But under the current modeling
    • 01:47:23calendar, in 310.1 of the protocols,
    • 01:47:27even if a resource entity submits that data an
    • 01:47:31hour before the deadline, we are required to model
    • 01:47:35that data according to the calendar. And so what ends up
    • 01:47:38happening is there's a sort of rushed back
    • 01:47:42and forth to try and clean up the data prior to modeling, and that puts
    • 01:47:47the entire modeling process potentially at risk
    • 01:47:50for errors being passed through in the Research
    • 01:47:54Interconnection Handbook. We have recommended that research entities submit that
    • 01:47:58data 30 days ahead of the modeling deadline,
    • 01:48:01but we're still seeing a high number of submissions coming in, like one or two
    • 01:48:04days before the deadline itself.
    • 01:48:08This NPRR would add a new paragraph four to
    • 01:48:12section 310.1 that would apply only to
    • 01:48:16the submission of initial resource registration data.
    • 01:48:20And that new calendar adds
    • 01:48:24a new column, one with the extra month and
    • 01:48:28some language clarifying that that is for ERCOT to review
    • 01:48:32and work with the resource entity to clean up that data.
    • 01:48:36And so the overall modeling calendar is not impacted.
    • 01:48:42If the data submitted is resolved and
    • 01:48:46accepted by ERCOT by the date in column two,
    • 01:48:49which is the existing date as it stands today, it would
    • 01:48:53proceed forward for the production load date.
    • 01:48:56That would be according to the calendar as it exists today.
    • 01:49:02That's the goal of the NPRR, is really to relieve
    • 01:49:05the loading on our staff. It also, I think,
    • 01:49:09would, this impacts the ability of tsps to
    • 01:49:13submit knomcrs for the
    • 01:49:16interconnecting substation topology. So there's
    • 01:49:20sort of additional impacts from the way things are happening
    • 01:49:24right now. And I think this extra month will also
    • 01:49:27allow us to process these submissions
    • 01:49:32in a more orderly way. So happy to take questions.
    • 01:49:36Thank you. Bob Helton.
    • 01:49:39Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of the language or anything
    • 01:49:43else on this. The only question I'm having,
    • 01:49:46and I haven't got that resolved yet, is we
    • 01:49:51currently probably have, and I'm not sure it affects us specifically,
    • 01:49:55but could affect other entities, is this is
    • 01:49:58kind of like the other NPRR that came out to
    • 01:50:02change the QSA date to 45 days.
    • 01:50:05We put a date for implementation on that so that
    • 01:50:09it would not interfere with those that were already in
    • 01:50:12the schedule to get in based on the current
    • 01:50:16rules. And that's the thing I'm concerned about that
    • 01:50:19I want to make sure of is that because the way I'm
    • 01:50:23assuming is once this is approved, since there's
    • 01:50:26not an impact, it will go into effect.
    • 01:50:30And what I want to make sure of is that it doesn't
    • 01:50:33impact any specific right now.
    • 01:50:36The next network modeling, or maybe the one after
    • 01:50:40that, I'm not sure. Modeling deadlines,
    • 01:50:44that we don't push them off further because of that,
    • 01:50:48because they're going under one schedule that's in today, and now, all of a sudden,
    • 01:50:51we change it. So I don't have any concern with what they're doing here.
    • 01:50:55That is my only concern. But I'm not sure we handle it
    • 01:50:58right now or if we handle it when it comes back with,
    • 01:51:02you know, the next month.
    • 01:51:08Thank you, Whitmire. Yeah, I think,
    • 01:51:12I think this new first column is a good ad. It's been
    • 01:51:16problematic in the past to explain to clients that, yeah, ERCOT says
    • 01:51:19January 1, but they really mean,
    • 01:51:23you know, and this is true in everything related to the
    • 01:51:27production load schedule. Really. The production
    • 01:51:30load schedule should be,
    • 01:51:33should be viewed as the public facing document
    • 01:51:37for ERCOT. And that is the one we're telling people they
    • 01:51:41have to meet. That is not how it's traditionally
    • 01:51:44been done, it's always like, yeah, but you gotta, you know, you gotta think
    • 01:51:48about that. You gotta back up x number of days. I think this solves out,
    • 01:51:52solves the backup x number of days with that new column at the
    • 01:51:56intent. Yes. Okay. I think that
    • 01:51:59part is great. I do agree with Elton, though. This should
    • 01:52:04not be implemented immediately. We need to look at the production
    • 01:52:08load schedule and make sure we don't impact stuff that's already
    • 01:52:11in progress.
    • 01:52:15You okay?
    • 01:52:21So what do we want to do with 1254?
    • 01:52:26Go ahead. Sorry, if I could just make one other comment. Yeah. I think
    • 01:52:30from ERCOT's perspective, you know, certainly sensitive
    • 01:52:34to the concern rates by both bobs and I think
    • 01:52:39we would be open to an implementation schedule that allows for
    • 01:52:45those projects that are right in that 30
    • 01:52:48day window in the current calendar not to be impacted by this.
    • 01:52:51But we do see this as an urgent.
    • 01:52:55We did not request urgency, but we would like to move this forward as quickly
    • 01:52:59as possible. Go ahead, Martha.
    • 01:53:02I'd like to recommend we approve it as submitted on the
    • 01:53:05combo ballot and then try to address the implementation issue when
    • 01:53:09we get the IA next month. And maybe Corey
    • 01:53:12can help us with the proposal next month on that piece.
    • 01:53:16Yeah, absolutely. We can. We can bake in a Runway into
    • 01:53:19the proposed effective date either at next PRS or at TAC.
    • 01:53:23We'll pass the net out to figure when the board
    • 01:53:26and PUC would meet to approve it. And we can work in language to the
    • 01:53:29motion to make sure that it doesn't take effect immediately. It would
    • 01:53:33be approved, put into a gray box that everyone's aware
    • 01:53:37door is closing, but whatever the appropriate timeline is. And then we
    • 01:53:40would unbox it and enforce the schedule at that point.
    • 01:53:45Bob Helton. Yeah, I was going to say with
    • 01:53:49that. I don't have a problem with moving forward with this today with
    • 01:53:52that.
    • 01:53:55Okay, so second, Bob,
    • 01:53:59unless we need an individual ballot, I think we can add this to.
    • 01:54:04Go ahead, Corey. Okay. That's the concern with, if Bob Helton is
    • 01:54:07saying he was going to vote no on a motion to recommend approval of it
    • 01:54:11because he's not happy with the language yet, we would take up a separate one.
    • 01:54:15No, no. I said I'm okay with it going forward today based
    • 01:54:18on us looking at an implementation date when the IA comes through.
    • 01:54:22So. I'm sorry, I'm a surgeon. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
    • 01:54:25All right, so we're all good to add 1254
    • 01:54:30to the combo ballot. Okay.
    • 01:54:33Okay. Corey, can I get a thumbs up
    • 01:54:36from Cory? I know we're okay.
    • 01:54:40All right, guys, last but not least this is coming to us from ERCOT.
    • Clip 7.3 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
      01:54:43 1255, the introduction of mitigation for energy storage
    • 01:54:47resources. This is the mitigated offer cap
    • 01:54:51curves below the system wide offer cap for ESR resources
    • 01:54:55when there is a potential
    • 01:54:58for market power exploitation.
    • 01:55:02Does someone from ERCOT want to give us an overview on 1255?
    • 01:55:06Ryan? Thank you. Ryan King with
    • 01:55:10ERCOT. So this NPRR is really the culmination
    • 01:55:13of several months of consultation,
    • 01:55:16predominantly at the CMWG, but also
    • 01:55:19WMS and TAC. The purpose of this was to look
    • 01:55:23at replacing the current mitigated offer cap framework for
    • 01:55:27energy storage resources, which sets the mitigated offer
    • 01:55:30cap at the system wide offer cap.
    • 01:55:34So what you have before you is what we're calling the
    • 01:55:38just in time mitigated offer cap proposal for energy storage resources.
    • 01:55:42So the. The revisions are predominantly to section
    • 01:55:46four, four, nine, 4.1.
    • 01:55:50In that section, we explain that where an ESR has been flagged
    • 01:55:54for mitigation as part of the SCAD CCT,
    • 01:55:57each non competitive constraint with a negative shift factor of
    • 01:56:0120% shall be considered, and then the mitigated
    • 01:56:05offer cap will be a function of the maximum shadow price
    • 01:56:08for each constraint plus the system lambda from step
    • 01:56:12one of the scad two step process. Less a
    • 01:56:16penny. So, as noted, this has been reviewed
    • 01:56:20for some time and refined based on feedback at the CMWG.
    • 01:56:24At that time, we also had done some high level sensitivity
    • 01:56:28analysis to demonstrate that, effectively, this was a
    • 01:56:32fairly light touch in terms of the intervals
    • 01:56:35and capacity that was impacted.
    • 01:56:39But I'm happy to answer any questions
    • 01:56:43related to this proposal. Thank you. Ryan.
    • 01:56:47Any thoughts or questions on
    • 01:56:501255?
    • 01:56:54Okay, what would we like to do with this one?
    • 01:56:58We want to keep it here. Do we want to move it forward?
    • 01:57:02Not everybody at the same time.
    • 01:57:07Thoughts?
    • 01:57:10What? Meyer? Well, I don't. I cannot make a motion
    • 01:57:14because I don't have a seat, but I think this has been discussed, you know,
    • 01:57:18for quite a while. I don't think there's any surprise here,
    • 01:57:22and I think it would be appropriate for it to move forward, but I don't
    • 01:57:25have authority to do that. Okay, we appreciate your
    • 01:57:29thoughts, nonetheless. Is everybody okay if we put.
    • 01:57:34Oh, thank you, Bob Helton. Yeah, I just want to add
    • 01:57:38in, I want to thank ERCOT for everything they've done, kind of run this through
    • 01:57:41and all the options that were out there, and I think this is probably the
    • 01:57:44best option of everything we looked at. So I'm good either way.
    • 01:57:49This is the first time you've seen the language, so if we're comfortable with that
    • 01:57:53the language is correct based on what we had seen before,
    • 01:57:56then I guess we're okay. But I
    • 01:58:00wasn't sure if WMS wanted to just check the language. I'm good either
    • 01:58:04way, so. Okay. Thank you,
    • 01:58:08Bob. Caitlin.
    • 01:58:13Hey, Diana. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Great. Go ahead.
    • 01:58:18I think I would like to see this tabled.
    • 01:58:22I agree with Bob Whitemire. We did discuss
    • 01:58:26this in the working group.
    • 01:58:30But I think I'd like some time to go through the language and
    • 01:58:34maybe ask some questions with ERCOT. We've had a
    • 01:58:38lot of things come into play recently with ESR. So I
    • 01:58:41just want to make sure we are understanding kind of
    • 01:58:45all the implications that go along
    • 01:58:48with if you have a medicated offer the ESR and
    • 01:58:52maybe you're dispatched before you thought
    • 01:58:56you would be. I just want to make sure we're understanding that and
    • 01:58:59get another look at the language. So I think I would offer
    • 01:59:03a motion to table. I don't have a preference
    • 01:59:06on whether it get referred. I think I
    • 01:59:10could ask my questions to to ERCOT offline,
    • 01:59:14but I would make a motion to table.
    • 01:59:18Appreciate that. Caitlin, how does everybody feel about leaving this
    • 01:59:22table? I don't know if we need to refer it out anywhere, but is everybody
    • 01:59:26okay if we table 1255
    • 01:59:31and leave it here? Okay. All right,
    • 01:59:34Corey. So let's add 1255 to the combo ballot as
    • 01:59:38tabled,
    • 01:59:45and we'll give Corey a second to get our combo ballot. And then we'll just
    • 01:59:49need a motion, a second bill.
    • 01:59:59If you asked for a motion or a second, I'm happy to provide either.
    • 02:00:03Okay, thank you. Anybody to support Bill?
    • 02:00:08Got a motion by Bill Barnes. Do we have a second?
    • 02:00:12All right, we have Martha Henson. Second. Oh,
    • 02:00:15she beat you, Bob. Thank you, though.
    • 02:00:19Okay, so, Corey, we have a motion and a second
    • 02:00:22for all the items on the screen for the combo ballot.
    • Clip 9 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
      02:00:31And thank you all very much for that. And we will begin up
    • 02:00:35with the consumers with Eric Goff. Abstain. No, just kidding.
    • 02:00:38I would never do that. It's always
    • 02:00:41one in a group. You think your 1250s comments are going to get through attitude
    • 02:00:45like that? Mark Dreyfus. Thank you. Mark Smith.
    • 02:00:49Yes, thanks, sir. Melissa. Yes. Thank you.
    • 02:00:53Onto the co ops. Lucas. Yes,
    • 02:00:56thank you. Trevor? Yes. Thank you. Eric Blakey. Yes,
    • 02:01:00thank you. On Independent generators.
    • 02:01:04Let's see. No Andy today. How about Caitlin?
    • 02:01:12Yes. Caitlin. Thank you. Corey. Thank you. Thank you.
    • 02:01:15Sorry I'm slow today. Yes, sir.
    • 02:01:20Alex? Yes. Thank you. David Mindham.
    • 02:01:24Yes. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Under IPMs.
    • 02:01:28John. Yes. Thanks, sir. Under Ireps.
    • 02:01:31Bill? Yes, thank you.
    • 02:01:36Just checking for Aaron under
    • 02:01:41IOUs. Martha? Yes, thank you. Rob?
    • 02:01:44Yes, thank you. Jim? Yes,
    • 02:01:47thanks. Thank you. Onto our munis. Diana?
    • 02:01:51Yes, thank you. Ashley? Yes, thank you. And Fei?
    • 02:01:55Yes, thank you.
    • 02:01:58Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. Thank you,
    • Clip 8 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
      02:02:02Corey. So that takes us to other business.
    • 02:02:06Suzy, did you have something that you would like to say for that?
    • 02:02:09Yes. Susie Clifton with ERCOT. This is just a
    • 02:02:13reminder to everybody that's getting to be that time of year again.
    • 02:02:16So we need to get your membership applications and fees in.
    • 02:02:19And then the date of record this year is Friday, November 1.
    • 02:02:23And we will proceed with the 2025
    • 02:02:27TAC and subcommittee election process on Tuesday,
    • 02:02:32November 5. Any questions?
    • 02:02:37Okay, thank you. Bill. Oh, sorry.
    • 02:02:41Sorry, Susie. That's okay. When's the market notice going to come
    • 02:02:44out to make us aware of when the elections
    • 02:02:47begin? So that will come out
    • 02:02:52October 28. On that Monday, a week before the date of record.
    • 02:02:56I'm sorry. On the Monday of the week of the date of record, the elections
    • 02:02:59will start the following week. Okay, great, thanks. But I will get out
    • 02:03:03like the, you know, the TAC affirmation letter and the
    • 02:03:07subcommittee letter of employment or agency. I'll get those out
    • 02:03:11to you in advance of that right after the TAC meeting. I know the
    • 02:03:16portal or whatever the thing is to submit our corporate
    • 02:03:19membership change, but is there any changes to the letters of employment or
    • 02:03:24anything else as a part of this? To the letters of employment and
    • 02:03:27to the TAC affirmation letter? No, that's the same as last year. So it's
    • 02:03:31a, it's a paper letter. We'll print out, sign, scan back.
    • 02:03:35It's not a checkbox in the portal or anything? Correct. Okay.
    • 02:03:38Not for the election process. The membership application
    • 02:03:41process is again all the portal and you'll have to do the wiring.
    • 02:03:45They sent out, I think, two notices already,
    • 02:03:48market notice and to the TAC list serve. And I
    • 02:03:51know this was a big deal last year. Probably will be as we get closer
    • 02:03:55to the deadline. How often do you guys update the corporate member list so that
    • 02:03:58we can make sure that we're good? I don't
    • 02:04:02know how much, how often they do that since that's membership services.
    • 02:04:05I know that Kathryn came and spoke to that at
    • 02:04:09the September TAC meeting, but I can reach out and see if I can
    • 02:04:12find that for you and have them contact you. And usually
    • 02:04:16you do it or whoever corporate election services is that.
    • 02:04:19We said that a new team membership services. Membership services.
    • 02:04:23But Katherine came and spoke to it at the
    • 02:04:26tax. You updated weekly but as we get closer to deadline,
    • 02:04:31people get a little nervous. So maybe every other day
    • 02:04:35would be nice. Yeah, I think they did it on a weekly basis last year,
    • 02:04:38but I can't recall exactly. I have a note I just was pulling up
    • 02:04:42that says it's on Fridays. They have,
    • 02:04:45but thank you, Eric. We asked our account rep and he helped
    • 02:04:49us get confirmation too, so it's a good idea. I know there was some sweating
    • 02:04:53at the last minute last year, see if they made it in or not.
    • 02:04:55So that was, and again, encouragement to get that in as quickly
    • 02:04:59as possible. It's open. You can do it now. So, you know,
    • 02:05:02get going with that and you'll not be waiting last
    • 02:05:05minute. Thank you, Suzy. We had a
    • 02:05:09question by Caitlin.
    • 02:05:12Yep, Susie touched on it, but I wanted to confirm
    • 02:05:16where, where we'll see it. The TAC
    • 02:05:19qualification and then the employment letter.
    • 02:05:23Will you send out an example of those, Suzy?
    • 02:05:26Yes. Following this month's TAC meeting, we'll have
    • 02:05:30this discussion again, and then following that, I'll send the letters out,
    • 02:05:34and then when I start the election process,
    • 02:05:38I will send the letters there as well. So they're going to come out
    • 02:05:41to you three times before or
    • 02:05:45with the start of the election. They'll come out with the document that comes out
    • 02:05:48on October 28. They'll come after the
    • 02:05:52October TAC meeting, and then they're going to come out again to
    • 02:05:55you on the date we start the elections,
    • 02:05:59which is November 5. But they
    • 02:06:02would be due at the time of our segment election,
    • 02:06:05right? Yes. So that's a week
    • 02:06:08at most. So is there, you know, some of us have link
    • 02:06:12the internal processes. The 28th to the fifth
    • 02:06:16is about a week. Is there a way we could get a copy
    • 02:06:20of those, like after this meeting or earlier?
    • 02:06:26Yes, I can go ahead and I will just send them to the segment listserv.
    • 02:06:30So I encourage everyone to be, you know,
    • 02:06:34making sure that they are on their listserv,
    • 02:06:38their appropriate listserv. I can send it out to each segment listserv and then
    • 02:06:41do you want like a TAC list serve or something or.
    • 02:06:45That's why I was waiting for the TAC meeting, because following the TAC meeting,
    • 02:06:48I would send it out to the TAC list serve.
    • 02:06:52But other than the segment, individual segment listserv, where do
    • 02:06:55you want it sent? I can email you offline.
    • 02:06:59I'm thinking why don't we send it the 21st to the TAC list
    • 02:07:03serve instead of the 28th? Because again, the 28th to the
    • 02:07:06third of elections only gives people about a week. So if
    • 02:07:10we could send it Monday?
    • 02:07:13Yeah, I can do that for you. Okay. I'll send you
    • 02:07:17an email. But, you know, thanks PRS, for letting us have this
    • 02:07:20conversation on microphone and thank you, Susie. Thank you.
    • 02:07:25Bob Helton. Yeah, just, just on the acceptance that we're
    • 02:07:28talking about. Yeah, last year it was, you know, you went out and looked at
    • 02:07:31the list every Friday. Are they,
    • 02:07:35I'm curious just to make sure, is that the only place to verify whether you
    • 02:07:39were accepted or not or on
    • 02:07:42the portal where we're supposed to do everything and have the conversations,
    • 02:07:46will there be an acceptance in that portable, you know,
    • 02:07:50in the portal that shows, yeah. You've paid, you've got
    • 02:07:53your application in or is it just we have to go to
    • 02:07:56that weekly list again,
    • 02:08:02Bob, that's membership services, the membership
    • 02:08:05part of that. And so I'm not really aware of how that goes.
    • 02:08:09I know that you will get a notice from the portal after your application
    • 02:08:13and fees have been submitted. And I know that you can verify
    • 02:08:17on the website. Yeah. Okay. Yeah,
    • 02:08:20I thought it was submitted. Yeah, I thought there was going
    • 02:08:23to be something in the portal and that's why I was just double checking because
    • 02:08:26I, so I'm hoping we're not back to just having to do it every Friday,
    • 02:08:29you know, because that, like Bill said, there's a lot of sweating that goes on
    • 02:08:33those last couple of weeks.
    • 02:08:38Yes. Okay. Thank you, Suzie, for keeping
    • 02:08:41us straight. Okay. And then just one other
    • 02:08:45thing I wanted to note is the November and
    • 02:08:49the December PRS is going
    • 02:08:53to have a afternoon start. We don't want to
    • 02:08:56confuse folks with today's meeting, but on November 14 and December
    • 02:09:0012, there are open meetings. Again, one of the
    • 02:09:03reasons why we move to Wednesday meetings for next year.
    • 02:09:07But in an effort, just for some
    • 02:09:11consistency, even if the open meetings are canceled, we're going
    • 02:09:14to try to keep the 01:00 start times, at least for the November.
    • 02:09:18That way folks aren't confused and trying to wait and see. So November 1401:00
    • 02:09:23start time and probably December as well.
    • 02:09:27Bill, was that your question? We're going to keep them, yeah,
    • 02:09:30we're going to keep the 01:00 just so it's, everybody can plan on it.
    • 02:09:34Thank you. It's appreciated. Absolutely. Okay,
    • 02:09:39Jim, go ahead. Yes, thanks, Diana. Sorry.
    • 02:09:43Going back to Bob's question about the update on the portal,
    • 02:09:47they will let you know if, when your application has been
    • 02:09:51accepted and then the fees are received and they'll let you know that your,
    • 02:09:56your membership application is complete.
    • 02:09:59Thank you, Jim.
    • 02:10:02Okay. Thank you.
    • 02:10:05So on that, I just wanted to our experience,
    • 02:10:08we got a notification that our application was
    • 02:10:12complete, but we never got confirmation the payment was processed. And you
    • 02:10:16need both before you actually are officially approved. So we had to like,
    • 02:10:19just check the list and we eventually showed up on there. So we
    • 02:10:23did not get a final payment confirmation. We did get,
    • 02:10:26the portal said your application has been submitted, so just let
    • 02:10:30you know. Okay, thank you, Bill. I appreciate
    • 02:10:34it.
    • 02:10:37Okay, if there's no other thoughts,
    • Clip 10 - Adjourn
      02:10:40that's the end of it. Thank you guys so much for your time today.
    • 02:10:43We'll see you in November.
    • 02:10:48Bye bye for now.
    2024-prs-combined-ballot-20241017
    Oct 16, 2024 - xls - 113.5 KB
    2024-prs-nprr1180-ballot-20241017
    Oct 16, 2024 - xls - 112 KB
    Agenda_prs_20241017
    Oct 09, 2024 - docx - 45.4 KB
    October-17,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Oct 09, 2024 - zip - 7.6 MB
    Draft-minutes-prs-20240912
    Oct 09, 2024 - docx - 80.4 KB
    October-17,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Oct 14, 2024 - zip - 8 MB
    October-17,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Oct 15, 2024 - zip - 8.1 MB
    Prs_october_2024_project_update
    Oct 14, 2024 - pptx - 197.6 KB
    Item-6---nprr-1202-interconnect-fees
    Oct 16, 2024 - pptx - 68.2 KB
    October-17,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Oct 16, 2024 - zip - 8.1 MB