GridMonitor

11/07/2024 09:30 AM

Video Player is loading.

Current Time 6:40

Duration 2:19:10

Loaded: 4.99%

Stream Type LIVE

Remaining Time 2:12:30

ZOOM HELP

Drag zoomed area using your mouse.

100%

Selection

Transcript

Scroll automatically

Item 0 - Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - ERCOT Staff
00:01:30
Good morning everyone. We're getting ready to get started here. I'm Pamela Hanson with
00:01:34
ERCOT. Some meeting reminders to
00:01:37
make meeting go more smoothly. If you're here in person,
00:01:41
please remember to sign in. The sign in sheet is in the hall outside
00:01:44
the room. We have a managed queue. If you'd
00:01:47
like to join the discussion and you're on WebEx, please place your name in the
00:01:50
chat. If you're in the meeting room, please raise your table tent.
00:01:54
When speaking, please clearly state your name and who you represent.
00:01:58
If you're on WebEx or have called into the meeting, please remain on mute
00:02:02
until the chair recognizes you. Should the meeting or audio end
00:02:05
unexpectedly, please log back in using the same WebEx information
00:02:09
posted to the meeting page. We vote by ballot. When it's your
00:02:13
segments turn to vote, please remember to unmute and check that
00:02:16
you're not double muted and then return to mute after you voted.
00:02:20
Mr. Quorum, whenever you're ready to begin.
00:02:27
Bless you. Good morning everyone. Welcome to your November.
00:02:31
ROS. It's good to see all of you in person.
00:02:35
We have a number of alt reps and we were trying to work those out.
00:02:39
So thank you for giving us an extra minute.
00:02:43
So for today, Navarro has given his alt rep
00:02:47
to Mary Williams. Chase has given his alt rep to Kristen
00:02:51
Cook. Adam Cochran has given his alt rep to John
00:02:54
Barnell. Resume has given her alt rep to Shane Thomas.
00:02:58
Chris Hendricks has given his proxy to Jennifer Smith.
00:03:03
Wes has given his proxy to David Blankership.
00:03:07
And Chris Garrity has given his rep to Rob Bevel.
00:03:11
And then Chris Letrick has given his to Andrew
00:03:16
Kiefer. I think I have gotten all the reps for
00:03:20
today and
00:03:25
with that let's do a quick overview of the agenda.
00:03:28
If you could scroll down for me, Aaron, so I could see the agenda.
00:03:35
Yeah, let's go ahead and do that.
Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
00:03:55
All right, so everyone's had a chance to look at the antitrust admonition
00:03:59
so we can go back to the agenda.
Item 2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
00:04:06
So we'll take a look at those ROS minutes from last month.
00:04:09
I'll give you a quick update on TAC. We do have
00:04:13
some ERCOT reports. I will highlight that there is
00:04:17
a report from Luis under the operations report
00:04:21
about an event that they saw on November 1st.
00:04:25
Systems planning report. And then we get into the ROS revision request.
00:04:30
We have a couple IAs before us today,
00:04:34
all no impact. We get into the language review
00:04:38
for PGRR120. ERCOT does have
00:04:42
a presentation for that and a suggested place
00:04:45
to refer them to. And then from
00:04:49
There we get into 1257,
00:04:53
which is related, and then and to the
00:04:56
tabled. So those will likely remain tabled.
00:05:01
We'll see how we're doing on the break time and then OWG's report,
00:05:04
PLWG's report. Note that under PLWG we
00:05:08
have NPRR1247. I suspect this will be the thing that takes the
00:05:12
most time today. And Dylan and I have come up with an outline
00:05:15
to streamline our discussion for today to try to drive us to a vote,
00:05:19
since it seems like we only have one meeting for this. And then
00:05:23
we'll get into ndswg, combo ballot,
00:05:26
finish up the rest of our working groups, and then I would like to review
00:05:30
those open action items. I did send an email to all of the
00:05:33
working group leadership to ask them to review those open action items
00:05:37
that pertain to their group so that we can try to move on
00:05:41
with a cleaner slate going into next year.
00:05:45
And with that we can scroll back up any questions before we kick
00:05:48
this meeting off. And just because I don't want anybody
00:05:52
getting hangry on my watch, we will wrap this up by noon.
Item 3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
00:05:58
Okay, so that takes us back to item number three,
00:06:04
the October 3rd meeting minutes. We generally
00:06:07
can add this to the combo ballot, but just wanted to pause and make sure
00:06:10
that there were no concerns about doing that.
00:06:15
Okay. All right, Erin, thanks.
00:06:36
Okay, from there I'll give you my quick
Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update - Katie Rich
00:06:40
TAC update. We spent quite a bit of time on
00:06:43
1190 dealing with HDL overrides, which was remanded
00:06:48
back from the board to TAC. That's ultimately tabled
00:06:52
for more discussion next month.
00:06:55
There was also a lengthy discussion on 1180. And you notice
00:06:58
that we have PGRR107 on our agenda today.
00:07:02
It was ultimately tabled.
00:07:05
So TAC will then get PGRR107 to go along with it
00:07:09
for next month. And then all of our revision
00:07:13
requests that we brought to them were tabled because they're waiting for their NPRRs
00:07:16
that are over at PRS. And then on the
00:07:20
follow up to NOGRR245, the Commission will be taking
00:07:23
up a rulemaking to deal with that subsequent issue.
00:07:29
That's all I got for you on that. So that will take us into the
00:07:32
ERCOT report. So we'll start with the operations report.
Item 5 - ERCOT Reports
00:07:35
Alex, are you on the line for that?
00:07:40
Yes, this is Alex Lee from ERCOT. Can you hear me?
00:07:43
Okay, we can go ahead.
Item 5.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
00:07:46
Okay. So for the month of October,
00:07:49
the unofficial ERCOT peak demand was 77,780 megawatt
00:07:53
for on September 19 hour
00:07:57
ending 17. This was 6690
00:08:01
megawatt less than previous September.
00:08:05
In 2023, we also had a
00:08:10
solar generation record of 21,667
00:08:14
megawatt. On September 8,
00:08:18
which happened on interval ending
00:08:22
1403. There was one frequency event
00:08:26
which was related to a unit trip, but There was no
00:08:29
ECRS or RRS that was
00:08:32
deployed on September. We also had
00:08:36
one DC TIE curtailment. There was
00:08:40
26 HR commitments, nine of which
00:08:44
was related to congestion and the remaining
00:08:48
17 was related to system capacity.
00:08:52
ERCOT also issued one OCN and
00:08:55
one advisory for a possible tropical
00:08:59
cyclone on four September 9th.
00:09:02
ERCOT also had GMD advisories for K7
00:09:06
or higher.
00:09:10
I think with that I'll open the floor for any questions.
00:09:16
Thanks. Alex, any questions for him on
00:09:20
the operations report?
00:09:24
Okay, not seeing anything in the room. I'm not seeing anything online,
00:09:28
so thank you very much. And then turn it over.
00:09:33
Is Luis here or is he on? He's on the phone. All right.
00:09:36
Luis, do you want to give your update on November 1st?
00:09:48
Good morning, this is Luzon. Otho, can you hear me?
00:09:51
We can go ahead. Awesome, thank you.
00:09:54
Yes, I wanted to come give a brief update here.
00:09:59
At the end of October, in the last week around starting October
00:10:03
27, we started experiencing some frequency control
00:10:07
issues that was causing reg exhaustion
00:10:10
and additional operator actions such as dead offsets to help
00:10:14
recover frequency. So in our analysis we went
00:10:18
to try to see what was the cause of the issue. And what we
00:10:21
found was we are receiving incorrect
00:10:27
HSL telemetry for many IRR resources across across
00:10:31
at ERCOT, which is impacting SCED dispatch.
00:10:35
Essentially when what we're seeing is when a IRR gets
00:10:38
curtailed, their HSL is jumping,
00:10:42
let's say to maximum output capability. SCED believes that
00:10:45
there is energy there to dispatch it,
00:10:49
goes to dispatch it and the unit never responds to it because the HSL telemetry
00:10:53
is incorrect. So we've been dealing with that.
00:10:56
Last week we started seeing this with high curtailment periods. We do
00:11:00
have the new not to exceed logic that is in place. So many new resources
00:11:04
maybe experience curtailments. So we
00:11:07
believe it has to do with real time power potential calculations that
00:11:10
are being delimited or calculated and sent back to ERCOT at HSL.
00:11:15
So we have sent out multiple RFIs starting last
00:11:18
Friday and we are hoping we can get a quick turnaround
00:11:22
on this because it is impacting frequency control.
00:11:25
We continue to look at our dispatch and
00:11:28
look at telemetry over this past week. So we Sent another round of RFIs yesterday
00:11:32
as well. We will continue to do so until we get corrective
00:11:36
action. So I'm here to ask, if you did
00:11:39
receive an RFI from us, please review it. Please take corrective actions
00:11:43
that you need to correct the telemetry to send us accurate
00:11:47
telemetry to improve dispatch, and then respond to the RFIs with
00:11:50
any corrective actions or timeline that you have with expected
00:11:54
implementation. If it's going to take a little bit longer, but we are actively
00:11:58
looking at this as it's still impacting us today when we see curtailment.
00:12:03
That was my update. If there are any questions, please let me know.
00:12:07
We do have our SMEs available for questions. If we did send you an
00:12:10
RFI, you want to set up a phone call, we can do that.
00:12:16
Hey, Louis, what's the deadline for the RFIs?
00:12:21
The ones we sent out last week? Let's say I think the first was
00:12:25
November 1st. We gave a week, but to be honest,
00:12:29
if we can get them fixed much faster, that would be
00:12:32
much appreciated. I will say we have had some QSEs already
00:12:36
reach out to us, have some phone calls, and have implemented some corrective
00:12:40
action. The sooner the better. But in short, we gave everybody
00:12:43
one week to respond. Okay,
00:12:47
and then. So if that's the case, you might be able to follow
00:12:51
up with us at the December meeting. Yes.
00:12:55
Perfect. Okay. I don't see anybody in
00:12:58
the queue here in the room or online, but I do appreciate
00:13:02
you bringing that to our attention.
00:13:08
All right, that will take us to our system planning report.
Item 5.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan
00:13:15
Good morning everyone. This is Ping Yin with ERCOT Grid Planning.
00:13:19
So for this month's system planning report, I just have a quick
00:13:23
heads up for us today. So next Tuesday
00:13:27
at the RPG meeting, archive plans to bring additional
00:13:30
update for the extra High Voltage Infrastructure
00:13:35
plan. Please stay tuned for the
00:13:38
discussion next Tuesday at RPG.
00:13:41
So that's all I have today, but I'll be more than happy to address any
00:13:45
questions.
00:13:50
Thanks, Ping. Any questions for Ping?
00:13:55
Okay, thank you. Thanks, everyone.
00:13:59
All right, Erin is going to lay out
00:14:03
what's going on with the DWG procedural manual.
Item 5.3 - DWG Procedure Manual - Vote - Erin Wasik-Gutierrez
00:14:10
Thank you, Kayte. Good morning everyone. Erin Wasiguieres with
00:14:14
ERCOT and we are bringing a set of changes
00:14:18
to the DW to ROS to approve
00:14:22
the DWG manual. And as you may recall,
00:14:26
last month ROS approved a set of
00:14:29
changes incorporating revisions related to
00:14:33
NOGRR245. Somehow in
00:14:37
that version there was text
00:14:40
that was inadvertently omitted. That was
00:14:44
existing language. It should have been in that proceed or in
00:14:48
that Manual procedure. So all we're doing
00:14:51
here is simply reinstating that language.
00:14:55
This is not new language. It was existing language.
00:14:59
And the titles appeared in the version
00:15:03
that was approved last month right here
00:15:06
in redline. You will see the text that we're putting
00:15:10
in in 3, 4, 1 through 4
00:15:16
here as it appears
00:15:19
on the screen. So it's a relatively simple
00:15:23
change and we are here required, requesting ROS
00:15:27
to approve it for transparency reasons.
00:15:31
We did want to just go back and stick it in. Any questions?
00:15:39
Erin, I appreciate you laying that out and for making
00:15:45
sure we all had visibility into that, because I know there were a
00:15:48
couple of us that provided comments on this. And so obviously
00:15:52
it's important to us, but not seeing anybody.
00:15:56
I think that if you guys are okay,
00:16:00
we put it on the combo ballot once. I think we're okay to put it
00:16:03
on the combo ballot again.
00:16:06
Okay.
00:16:13
Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Erin. All right, so that takes us
Item 6 - ROS Revision Requests - Vote - Katie Rich
00:16:17
down to item number six. So we've got three
00:16:22
IAs here, all with no impact.
Item 6.1 - PGRR107, Related to NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses
00:16:26
So PGRR107 is related to
00:16:30
NPRR1180. There was a delay in
00:16:35
getting this IA out because ERCOT
00:16:38
was reviewing the 1180 IA
00:16:42
and did revise that. But, you know,
00:16:45
as a result of that review, PGRR107's IA did not
00:16:49
change. So we're still at no. No project required.
00:16:55
Are we okay with advancing this one?
00:16:59
Okay, right here, there's that one.
Item 6.2 - PGRR118, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
00:17:09
And then PGRR118 and
Item 6.3 - NOGRR268, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era
00:17:13
NOGRR268 are both related to the same NPRR.
00:17:18
Making some changes for the single model era. Going into
00:17:21
RTC. Again, no project on
00:17:25
either one of these. So everyone okay with combo on this?
00:17:31
Perfect. All right, thank you, guys.
00:17:49
And then once we get back to the agenda, we are on to
00:17:54
PGRR120, SSO prevention for generator interconnection.
00:17:58
As I mentioned, ERCOT has a presentation,
00:18:01
so I will yield the floor for that.
00:18:05
That's item six on the attachments. If you could pull
00:18:09
that up. Oh, you already got it up.
00:18:12
Thank you. Okay.
00:18:16
Hi, everybody. I'm Megan Miller from ERCOT Operations, the event
00:18:19
analysis team. So I'm here to introduce PGRR120.
Item 6.4 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection
00:18:24
So this is some subsynchronous oscillation prevention.
00:18:28
Next slide. Thank you. Okay, so just a
00:18:31
little bit of a background on the series capacitors in our system. Some of
00:18:35
you might be very familiar, but they were put in place to help
00:18:39
the West Texas transfer of our renewables
00:18:42
and also increased generation and load transfers from the Rio
00:18:46
Grande Valley. And so a Lot of them were put in place in about
00:18:50
2013 related to the CREZ project.
00:18:54
Next slide, please. All right,
00:18:58
so here are all the SSO definitions just
00:19:02
pasted here. Most of them are defined in
00:19:05
the protocols. So just to kind of level
00:19:09
set. So the subsynchronous oscillations, that's the coincident
00:19:13
oscillation occurring between two or more transmission elements or
00:19:16
generation resources. So essentially the natural
00:19:20
harmonic frequency is lower than 60 hertz. It's SSO.
00:19:26
SSO is really the high level umbrella term.
00:19:29
So this is a large family of different types of oscillations.
00:19:33
Some of those subsets are ssr. So that's
00:19:37
with generation resources and a series capacitor,
00:19:41
the sub synchronous control interaction ssci,
00:19:45
that's with the control system of generation resources.
00:19:50
And then we also have ssfr.
00:19:53
So sub synchronous faro resonance. And that's
00:19:56
related to transformers. So the saturated transformer
00:20:00
and a series cap, that interaction. So I did note this
00:20:04
is not defined in the ERCOT protocols,
00:20:07
but it's currently in NPRR1234.
00:20:12
So I have kind of a placeholder here
00:20:16
just for you all's information. And then we
00:20:20
also have SSR mitigation defined
00:20:23
in the protocols. So essentially you can have equipment
00:20:27
installed, controller adjustment, or different
00:20:30
procedures in order to mitigate those SSR vulnerabilities.
00:20:36
Next slide please.
00:20:42
All right, and so there's a couple links here
00:20:47
just for past presentations that ERCOT has
00:20:50
done. This is obviously not a conclusive list.
00:20:54
There are probably other presentations out there that I've missed.
00:20:58
And also these are the ones that are not related to
00:21:02
revision requests as well. So this has kind of been an ongoing
00:21:06
discussion for many years about kind of the challenges
00:21:10
of having generation resources located close to the
00:21:14
series capacitors.
00:21:17
Yep. Next slide.
00:21:23
Okay, and then I have compiled here
00:21:27
at the bottom a list of some historical events,
00:21:31
the years and the kind of number of events.
00:21:34
So this is something that we see in real time.
00:21:37
So we are still having SSR events occur
00:21:41
even though we have SSR mitigation in place.
00:21:46
These real time events cause additional studies to
00:21:50
be running. We have to have various types of mitigation.
00:21:54
One of the worst that we've had is that a unit in
00:21:57
the commissioning process was taken offline for about a year and a half.
00:22:01
So it's a pretty intensive process.
00:22:06
So in order to address the issues that come
00:22:10
about, this causes delays,
00:22:14
disruptions, and it can happen at any stage in the process.
00:22:17
So it can happen during the generation
00:22:20
interconnection, commissioning, real time operations,
00:22:25
and then Another note is that ssfr.
00:22:28
So that's that transformer saturation issue that was observed
00:22:32
in several studies during this time as well.
00:22:37
And so just the takeaway here, despite the
00:22:40
requirements we have in order to dampen the oscillations,
00:22:44
we're still having units trip and
00:22:48
due to SSR real time. And so it's a very
00:22:53
big risk to the ERCOT system, and it can cause equipment
00:22:57
damage, loss of generation, loss of float.
00:23:01
Next slide, please.
00:23:06
All right, so all that background to actually get to the PGRR
00:23:09
itself. So the concept here is that it
00:23:13
would prevent new generation projects from interconnecting such
00:23:16
that they are in minus one from being radial to a series capacitor.
00:23:20
So the one credible single contingency. Credible single
00:23:24
contingency is a defined term. Some of the details
00:23:28
in here we have the effective data. The PGRR would
00:23:32
allow some projects that are in progress to move forward.
00:23:36
We kind of establish the timing and the determination
00:23:40
of the distance away from the series capacitors.
00:23:44
And then we also address generator modifications and
00:23:48
what happens in real time if SSO is observed.
00:23:53
And then I did have one note. I did receive a
00:23:58
comment already informally and so related
00:24:02
to. Does this apply to distributed
00:24:05
generation? So when this language was written,
00:24:09
we kind of figured that this wouldn't capture or halt any
00:24:13
distributed generation. But the way the language is written is
00:24:17
that a TDSP would have to count the number of
00:24:20
credible single contingencies for DG projects.
00:24:24
And so that's something that we'll make comments on to kind
00:24:27
of explicitly say that the language is for transmission
00:24:31
connected generation projects.
00:24:36
I think that is all that I had.
00:24:40
Any questions?
00:24:43
We do have Cyrus in the queue. He has a question on mitigation.
00:24:46
Okay. Yeah, on the mitigation.
00:24:50
So this PGRR120 is mitigation requirements
00:24:55
for the transmission connected generation
00:24:59
facility. That's correct. Right.
00:25:04
It's a requirement on the generator. Not on the. Not on the
00:25:08
tdu. Correct. Correct. It's for new
00:25:12
generation projects. Yeah. And so my follow up to that is,
00:25:18
are there any requirements for SSO
00:25:22
mitigation on the tdu, or is this.
00:25:26
The whole effort so far is more on the. On the generator side?
00:25:33
So we have in the protocols SSR
00:25:37
mitigation. I know that I
00:25:43
think most of that is for generators, but I
00:25:47
believe we might have some for the TDS. P.S. on the series caps themselves.
00:25:53
Yeah. Okay. Just. I was just trying to get.
00:25:57
Get an understanding of ultimately who's. Who's paying for this.
00:26:01
And it sounds like it's. It's in most cases it would be
00:26:05
the generator community that's responsible.
00:26:09
Although there could be some costs on TDUs which ultimately
00:26:12
would be paid for by consumers. So going
00:26:17
forward, whenever we have new generators come on the system, they're required
00:26:21
to pay for whatever min negation they need to
00:26:26
protect them from SSR vulnerability.
00:26:30
So this. That answers my question. Thanks,
00:26:34
go ahead. So currently, and it sounds like there may be a little
00:26:37
bit of confusion on what we're doing here, but currently,
00:26:41
per the protocols, any generator that's connected N
00:26:45
minus 1 from a series capacitor has to be fully
00:26:49
mitigated. So have mitigation in
00:26:52
place to dampen out any oscillations. So that's
00:26:56
already there. I think what we're seeing
00:27:00
here is that this is such a complex issue
00:27:04
that they're not fully mitigated.
00:27:08
And when we Talking to the OEMs,
00:27:11
it sounds like this is a very difficult phenomenon
00:27:15
to resolve, even with mitigation through the inverters.
00:27:19
So really what we're saying here in this figure
00:27:23
is that we wouldn't allow any new
00:27:27
generation to connect N minus 1 to a series
00:27:30
capacitor just because it is such a complex problem
00:27:34
that's very difficult to replicate in any simulation.
00:27:38
And it sounds like it's very difficult to resolve by
00:27:42
the OEMs. Should that help answer
00:27:46
your question or resolve any of the confusion of what we're trying to do here?
00:27:51
Yeah, no, that, that helps. I guess my
00:27:55
follow up is, have we done. Is there any sort of
00:27:58
analysis of, you know, how many
00:28:02
generators that are somewhere
00:28:05
in the queue this could impact or. We don't. We don't know that yet.
00:28:11
We've done preliminary checks and
00:28:14
I don't know that it's a huge number of projects,
00:28:18
especially because of the way the language is written that
00:28:21
the. I think it's security screening stage.
00:28:25
But the tdsp, if anybody wants to correct me
00:28:29
on that, I'd welcome that information.
00:28:33
But to my knowledge, I don't think it's a huge number of projects
00:28:38
because it is specific circuits in the system.
00:28:41
There's only a handful. Okay,
00:28:44
thank you. Let's move on in the queue. Kristen Cook is up next.
00:28:51
Thank you. This is Kristen Cook with Southern Power.
00:28:54
Are you able to hear me? Okay, we can go ahead.
00:28:58
Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So first,
00:29:02
the list of capacitors a few slides up,
00:29:07
I just wanted to confirm is that an exhaustive list of
00:29:13
the capacitor elements that would
00:29:17
be of concern in the ERCOT system.
00:29:22
It's the TSP owned. There is, I believe,
00:29:25
an Re owned as well, but they would
00:29:29
be the primary party interconnecting there.
00:29:34
So this language would also apply potentially to
00:29:38
re own series capacitors as well.
00:29:43
Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then
00:29:47
are you able to provide any additional color
00:29:51
or explanation on the
00:29:55
various events, the eight events that you've identified
00:30:00
over the last 15 years?
00:30:05
Potentially we could provide that maybe in once
00:30:10
we table it to say planning working group or
00:30:14
dwg.
00:30:17
Sure. But I think we could give some high
00:30:20
level reviews. I think that I
00:30:23
would add that. So since we are going to table and refer this over to
00:30:27
the working groups, if there are really detailed questions, perhaps we could save
00:30:30
those for the working groups. So with the balance
00:30:34
of the queue, does that apply to you or do you need to ask
00:30:37
your questions now? So we still have Bob
00:30:40
Pelton and Steve ready. Just one clarifying
00:30:44
question. I'll save the rest of my questions for the working group. So just
00:30:48
following off on the last question you got. If asked about
00:30:51
whether this was an exhaustive list,
00:30:54
it says this one says tsp. And you also said
00:30:58
this will it will include re owned series
00:31:02
capacitors. Are you going to have a list like that that
00:31:06
tells us what that is or is that going to have to be determined
00:31:09
during the studies which re series capacitors
00:31:14
would create the issue? I believe there's only
00:31:17
one re owned series compensated circuit. Yeah.
00:31:21
Okay. And this is all. I don't think there's any hidden. Hidden out there.
00:31:24
Okay. That's just what I want to make sure of. I wasn't sure. Also this
00:31:27
is all going to be done very early in the process. Right. We're not waiting
00:31:30
for the SSO studies or anything else when you're sitting. Correct. And so we
00:31:34
want to do it early. Yeah.
00:31:37
Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thanks Bob.
00:31:40
Steve.
00:31:44
Hey. Hey. Sorry, I had a unmuting problem.
00:31:48
Just real quick, can you talk
00:31:52
about the effective date and the security
00:31:56
screening study? Is it. And I've already
00:32:00
lost. Is it the. If the project is
00:32:04
in the security screening study stage as
00:32:08
of the effective date of the PGRR,
00:32:11
then they're okay to go ahead or do they have to
00:32:14
have completed it by the effective date?
00:32:19
I believe if they're in the security screening
00:32:23
stage, they would be okay to go ahead.
00:32:27
But that's something we can look at. But the intention is
00:32:30
not to. Is to try to get away from putting a specific date in
00:32:34
the PGRR because it just kind of outdated language.
00:32:38
So that was kind of the intention of when it's effective.
00:32:41
And that's what we used going Forward, but I'll make
00:32:45
a note to look into that about the specifics of that very
00:32:50
detailed timing. Okay.
00:32:53
Okay, where will you tell
00:32:57
give the answer to that question then during
00:33:04
the security screening. Oh, no stage. Hopefully that would be like
00:33:08
the kickoff or something. Oh no. I mean,
00:33:11
but where are you going to report back on the answer to that question?
00:33:14
Or is it, you know, for, oh, where we get tabled to.
00:33:18
So potentially plwg. Okay, great. Thank you
00:33:25
for all the questions in the queue. So ERCOT requested that it
00:33:29
be tabled and referred to PLWG and dwg.
00:33:32
Any concerns about sending them to both working groups?
00:33:37
Okay, let's put that on the combo ballot.
00:33:41
Thank you. Thank you.
00:33:53
Thanks, Erin.
00:33:59
Okay, once we get back to the agenda. So there's
00:34:03
is a NOGRR and an NPRR. So the
00:34:07
NOGRR is before us for language review, but we can take the NPRR up
00:34:11
if we would like. So we might think about sending
00:34:15
these both to the same place. And I have
00:34:18
a suggestion for ibrwg, but is there someone
00:34:21
that wants to lay these two out?
00:34:32
All right. Good morning. Can you.
00:34:35
For everyone on the phone, this is Nitika Magu from Urka.
00:34:39
So this NOGRR has a companion
00:34:42
in NPRR whose preamble has a lot of the background that
00:34:46
I'm about to talk through both of
00:34:50
these. The combination is an outcome of work
00:34:54
that or studies that ERCOT did in conjunction
00:34:59
with a vendor GE some time back.
00:35:02
GE had come, if you all may recollect,
00:35:05
around April last year to present results from
00:35:09
their analysis and their recommendations. The context
00:35:13
of those studies was to assess if there were
00:35:17
any reliability concerns with how RRS was being
00:35:22
provisioned or carried, and if a card
00:35:26
should have limits on how many megawatts of RRS
00:35:30
a single resource could provide.
00:35:33
Amongst the various recommendations that GE made,
00:35:36
one of the recommendations was giving ERCOT a methodology
00:35:41
to measure the risk associated with common mode
00:35:44
failure. That is a resource that is carrying RRS
00:35:50
fails for any reason to be able to
00:35:53
provide that service, what sort of an exposure would
00:35:57
that failure to respond have on our frequency control
00:36:01
and our overall obligations under NRC requirements?
00:36:05
So under this NPRR, based off of those studies,
00:36:09
what we are recommending or what we are proposing to do is
00:36:12
to insert a maximum limit on the
00:36:16
amount of RRS any single resource
00:36:21
can provide.
00:36:25
Our studies that we had again shared both at
00:36:29
the workshop, I have linked to the studies here as well. We've been
00:36:33
discussing this particular topic with the PDC. So there are some more materials
00:36:39
at PDC's meeting page from earlier this year. But those studies,
00:36:42
basically through those studies we derive that with a
00:36:46
157 megawatt limit under
00:36:50
a variety of inertia conditions that the system typically operates at,
00:36:54
failure to respond from a single resource would most
00:36:59
of the time expose our grid
00:37:02
to a frequent to
00:37:06
a margin of about 50 millihertz. So that is,
00:37:09
you would expect that the change in the NADIRA frequency
00:37:14
to not exceed 50 milli hertz from
00:37:17
where it would have landed had everybody responded the way we expected them
00:37:21
to. So again,
00:37:24
context under studies are certainly available. We've also
00:37:28
looked at how resources are provisioning RRS
00:37:31
today. And based off of last year's data, we did
00:37:35
not see many resources carry up to 157megawatts of
00:37:39
RRS in real time. This year our analysis did
00:37:42
show there were a handful of units that were carrying RRS over
00:37:46
the 157 megawatts.
00:37:49
But there were no more than two units at any time in
00:37:53
our analysis where our exposure that were
00:37:57
carrying more than 157.
00:38:01
Now, the way we would look to implement this
00:38:05
and this particular limit on a
00:38:08
per resource would be as a part of the RRS
00:38:12
limits establishment procedure, which is
00:38:16
codified in the NOGRR. So that, that would be attachment N.
00:38:20
So if you start, if you, if we go to the NOGA and look at
00:38:23
attachment N, that's the place where you will
00:38:26
start seeing us call out how RRS limits
00:38:31
would be established. Any resource that
00:38:35
looks to qualify for RRS would go through
00:38:38
this process. And this process also gets engaged on a monthly
00:38:42
basis where we evaluate performance
00:38:45
of resources during FMEs. And if they don't perform, then they are
00:38:49
subject to the language that's written here. So the core of
00:38:52
the changes in the NOGA are really how the RRS limits would be established.
00:39:00
And the NPRR, we bring in language which recognizes
00:39:04
that a limit could be enforced. Now these,
00:39:08
these limits, the proposed limit is tied to studies. So we
00:39:12
do, we do, at least on an ongoing basis,
00:39:15
expect to revisit those studies and see if those limits can be
00:39:19
changed. Our current idea
00:39:22
is to put them on the
00:39:25
same cadence as we do other ancillary service limit related
00:39:29
studies. So we would certainly revisit on an annual basis if
00:39:33
any of the underlying data has changed. And if it is,
00:39:36
we would of course try to, we would propose
00:39:40
a change as a part of the as methodology review.
00:39:43
I'll pause. That was a lot of words, but I'm happy to answer questions.
00:39:50
Thanks, Seneca. So I might stand corrected here.
00:39:53
So this was part of PDCWG do you feel like it would be
00:39:57
worthwhile to send it back to them now that we have the actual language?
00:40:01
They have seen the language once. If there is any
00:40:05
members here who feel it would be valuable, then absolutely.
00:40:13
Okay, I'll hold that. But we might want
00:40:16
to do that. Yep.
00:40:20
Bob, you're in the queue. If I have
00:40:23
a 300 megawatt battery and I have two transformers
00:40:27
on two independent feeds back to the substation,
00:40:30
is that 150 megawatts each? So I'd
00:40:34
be good, or is it a limit at the site?
00:40:41
Question would be, are they modeled as two separate units in our system or one?
00:40:46
So I need to make sure they're modeled as two if I want to do
00:40:48
that. Thank you.
00:40:53
All right, Steve, you're back in the queue.
00:40:57
Yeah. Hey, Nitika,
00:41:01
do you have any sense on what sort of things
00:41:05
would affect the study? I mean, is it.
00:41:09
I'm obviously not looking for a sensitivity, but is it
00:41:12
inertia related? And if the view on system inertia
00:41:17
goes up, the limit would go up and if it went down,
00:41:20
the limit would go down? Or is it just really complicated and you can't
00:41:24
say it is. There is a component of
00:41:28
the. Of the limit of the study that is tied
00:41:31
to inertia. This one works inverse.
00:41:38
If most of the times we
00:41:41
operate at higher inertia, our failure to respond
00:41:46
has a bigger impact during higher inertia than lower.
00:41:50
But there is a. Steve,
00:41:53
there is a link to our materials and within
00:41:56
them is a pretty decent chart that we put together which tries to
00:42:00
document how we see the exposure
00:42:04
change under a variety. Under the variety of inertias.
00:42:10
What would make this value change?
00:42:15
Really? Maybe both a factor of
00:42:19
inertia and models that we have for the
00:42:22
resources. Okay.
00:42:25
Okay, great. Thank you very much. Netika,
00:42:30
Caitlin, you're next.
00:42:33
Thanks. Can you hear me? Yes,
00:42:37
go ahead. Awesome. Nitika. This is similar
00:42:41
to Bob Whitmire's question, but I just wanted to
00:42:45
confirm with ERCOT. So if you are modeled as
00:42:49
two separate resources, basically this
00:42:52
limit applies to a resource regardless of how many resources
00:42:56
are at the same point of interconnect. So if you have
00:43:00
two resources at the same point of interconnect, they're modeled as
00:43:04
separate resources. This is the limit.
00:43:09
So, yeah, so the under. So one of the
00:43:12
primary questions we had asked G was something to the effect of can
00:43:16
this be an individual resource limit? Does it need to be a site
00:43:20
limit? And where we had landed in those discussions through GE was
00:43:25
every resource. We expect any individual
00:43:29
resource to have its own separate controls and
00:43:34
any equipment failure that can cause performance issues would
00:43:37
be isolated to that resource.
00:43:41
With that sort of a setup, we did not see a need
00:43:45
to go put a limit on the site. We were comfortable putting the limit
00:43:49
on the resource because like I said, if there are
00:43:53
control issues or equipment failures that call performance issues,
00:43:58
we expect those to be limited to that resource,
00:44:02
not the site. Okay, I appreciate that
00:44:06
and Jupiter agrees that the point of failure would be
00:44:09
at the resource. So this should apply to the resource regardless of
00:44:13
how many are at the site or point of interconnect.
00:44:16
I kind of follow up or not follow up unrelated but second
00:44:20
question and commentary. My only concern with
00:44:24
this methodology, as I discussed with you,
00:44:28
is if there's the potential for a big
00:44:32
change year to year. So if we were approving
00:44:35
this in the ancillary service methodology, and I think it's
00:44:39
unlikely, but if we somehow went from a 157megawatt
00:44:43
limit to a 95megawatt
00:44:47
limit, I think that that would be problematic. So I'm wondering
00:44:51
if there's any appetite for a hard limit or
00:44:55
I think another thing you and I discussed was maybe
00:44:58
if it changes a certain megawatts or certain percentile,
00:45:02
you get some amount of time before
00:45:06
that's implemented. You know, as I said, I'm not worried about
00:45:09
going from 157 megawatts to
00:45:13
153 or, you know,
00:45:16
168. But it would be if we're changing this
00:45:21
year to year and there's a big swing of 50
00:45:24
megawatts or something.
00:45:29
Understood. See the. So one thing to remember,
00:45:33
one thing to note, the RRS
00:45:36
that we design, we design such that we can
00:45:40
meet ERCOT's frequency response obligation that NERC
00:45:43
has established under its.003 standard.
00:45:47
So essentially.
00:45:51
So the crux of this limit is
00:45:54
to help reduce our exposure to running
00:45:57
into NERC violations because of frequent not having
00:46:01
sufficient frequency response. So to
00:46:05
us, to an extent, Caitlin, because there is that exposure,
00:46:12
if our revised study does indicate that we
00:46:15
need to limit RRS to a lower value,
00:46:19
we would certainly want to tend in that direction and reduce our exposure.
00:46:24
If you have ideas of I
00:46:29
understand where you're coming from, but I also have to sort of balance out our
00:46:33
exposure to NERC. So there is.
00:46:38
That was in the back of our minds when you
00:46:41
and I spoke offline as well, to not bring anything into this language
00:46:47
that would limit our ability to be able to
00:46:51
protect the system and stay in compliance
00:46:54
with NERC. But I'm happy To continue discussing and see if there are
00:46:57
methods to
00:47:02
maybe set the limit, the initial limit, in a way that
00:47:06
may prevent a
00:47:10
large drop from one value to another.
00:47:17
I think that would be a good reason to table
00:47:21
and refer this over to PDCWG and see what kind of ideas come
00:47:25
up. Anyone opposed to that?
00:47:31
Okay, let's add that to the combo. About next slide.
00:47:42
Katie, I just want to get clarification.
Item 6.5 - NOGRR271, Related to NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
00:47:45
So we are, we are tabling
00:47:48
the NOGRR271 and referring the issue
Item 7 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
00:47:52
to PDCWG. And then as far as
00:47:57
NPRR1257 our we also requested PRS
00:48:00
to table that for further review. Yes. Okay.
00:48:03
Yes.
00:48:22
All right, thanks Erin.
Item 8 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
00:48:30
So that takes us down to item number 8.
Item 8.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
00:48:35
So NPRR1229
00:48:38
is still over at WMWG. So I don't believe there's anything
Item 8.2 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG
00:48:42
to look at here. NPRR1234 is still at NDSWG.
00:48:45
I believe they have a presentation on that today.
Item 9 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
00:48:50
PGRR073 can stay where it is. Let's go ahead and get
00:48:54
through OWG's presentation and then we will
00:48:58
take a break.
00:49:15
There's a question on the key from
00:49:22
Ethar. Go ahead with your question.
00:49:27
Yes, this is Ethar with Oncor. I was going
00:49:30
to ask about 1229. We just went through it
00:49:34
pretty quickly. Is there an expectation from ROS
00:49:37
for this or I guess is there any action intended from ROS
00:49:41
on this? Does it need to stay at ROS? So the
00:49:45
reason that it's here is to see what comes out of
00:49:48
the questions that ERCOT asked of
00:49:52
Stack. Some of them were technical in nature, many of them were
00:49:56
market related. But if there was anything that we needed to
00:49:59
provide input on, that's why it's staying tabled here.
00:50:05
Okay. Understand. Thank you.
Item 10 - Operations Working Group - OWG - Rickey Floyd
00:50:08
All right. Ricky or Tyler, are you on for OWG?
00:50:20
Katie, I'm here. Tyler was
00:50:24
here a minute ago, but if I can go ahead and give the update,
00:50:27
it shouldn't take me just a minute. Okay, thanks.
00:50:31
If you can go to the next slide please.
Item 10.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG - Possible Vote
00:50:36
So the NPRR1070 planning criteria
00:50:40
for GTC exit solution is still tabled at OWG,
00:50:45
pending follow up comments from
00:50:49
ERCOT on how they're going to approach this.
Item 10.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
00:50:54
If you can go to the next one. So NPRR1238,
00:51:01
we're still waiting for ERCOT comments to be posted.
00:51:05
Once they are posted, we're going to review those at OWG
00:51:10
to see if we can reach consensus on those.
00:51:14
Some of their concerns is how they're going to be able to track the
00:51:19
VCls they
00:51:23
were working on. Comments. I haven't had
00:51:27
an update from ERCOT on those comments at this point,
00:51:30
but we're hopeful they will get them filed before the next OWG.
00:51:36
Next slide, please.
Item 10.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
00:51:39
This one is just related to the NPRR1238
00:51:43
and again we're still waiting on ERCOT comments and
00:51:50
there were no other business and I think that pretty much takes care
00:51:54
of the update. Ricky, remind us when your
00:51:57
next meeting is. It is the 17th
00:52:01
of. No, it's 21st of.
00:52:05
21st of November. Okay. So we
00:52:09
tried to ask ERCOT for an update on where their comments were
00:52:14
in the process. It looks like
00:52:18
Agee just popped in the queue. Do you want to give us an update on
00:52:20
that?
00:52:27
Yeah, this is Agee. Can you all hear me? We can go ahead.
00:52:31
Hey, yeah, good morning, Agee Springer from ERCOT.
00:52:34
So, yes, ERCOT is still
00:52:37
working on its comments. We had actually had hoped to have them filed prior
00:52:41
to today's ROS meeting. We did
00:52:45
get some input from Legal that pointed
00:52:48
to the potential for maybe a different approach
00:52:53
to this issue. And so Legal has asked
00:52:56
us to wait while we have some additional discussions internally on
00:53:00
that. We are still intending to try and get them out before the next OWG.
00:53:11
Thanks, ag. And can you let Ricky
00:53:15
or Tyler know if for some reason you're not going to have them out before
00:53:18
the next OWG?
00:53:21
So, yeah, I can take that. Okay, thank you.
00:53:25
I think Imani's in the queue and she had some questions that I think
00:53:29
are best for OWG. So I would ask that
00:53:32
you take those there and you know, Agee will be available
00:53:36
to help answer those. I think Bill Blevins is usually on as well.
00:53:40
So I think that takes us through the OWG update.
00:53:44
Anything else for us, Ricky? No,
00:53:48
that's all I have at this time. Okay, thanks so much.
00:53:51
Let's take a 10 minute break. We'll come back
00:53:55
at 10:35 and we'll pick up with the PLWG update.
00:53:58
Thanks.
00:55:11
All right, everyone, we're going to get started in one minute.
00:55:45
Okay, let's get back to the meeting.
Item 11 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - Dylan Preas
00:55:48
So we are up to the PLWG
00:55:53
report. So what we're going to do is
00:55:56
you might see us skip a few slides, but Dylan and I have
00:56:00
an outline for NPRR1247. So we'll get through the other updates
00:56:04
first and then we'll take up those slides on NPRR1247
00:56:08
and then I'll just kind of lay out how we're going to take
00:56:11
things from here.
00:56:14
All right, the floor is yours. Thank you. Good morning,
00:56:17
everybody. My name is Dylan Priest, I'm PLWG Chair. I'll be giving the planning
00:56:21
working group report Report Plan
Item 11.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote
00:56:26
Working group met on October 16th. We took up PGRR115
00:56:30
interconnection requirements for large loads and modeling standards
00:56:35
for loads 25 megawatts or greater. We've had this for a couple of meetings.
00:56:38
We reviewed AEP comments and discussion included various
00:56:42
aspects of larger load rules and processes including
00:56:46
introduction of new terms, applicable generator and
00:56:49
load requesting entity load level thresholds for
00:56:53
large generator interconnection study process and loads to
00:56:56
be included in the LLIs. For example loads requested
00:57:00
in neighboring TSPs in the same area and
00:57:04
ERCOT plans to submit reply comments prior
00:57:08
to our November 12th POWG meeting and we did
00:57:12
table this one for further discussion.
Item 11.2 - PGRR117, Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Changes - PLWG - Possible Vote
00:57:17
So PGRR117 I'll spend just a moment on that this one. We are going
00:57:20
to pass this one on to ROS for consideration. This PGRR
00:57:25
addition of resiliency assessment and criteria to reflect PUC
00:57:28
rule changes did two things. It added the background
00:57:33
or the introduction of the resiliency assessment into Section 3 of
00:57:37
the Planning guide. That's regional planning and also all for
00:57:41
language for the resiliency criteria into section 4 of the Planning guide.
00:57:45
That's transmission system planning. Transmission system criteria.
00:57:50
We did review ERCOT reply comments dated 1011 and
00:57:55
there was some discussion of this PGRR does
00:57:58
introduce the assessment and provides the criteria but there's
00:58:02
really no sure path on what we do with the results once
00:58:06
we get get them. So that was discussed
00:58:09
in some detail at PLWG and that's really what this
00:58:12
next bullet says. ERCOT intends to propose a
00:58:16
NPRR to address the process for determining whether
00:58:20
an upgrade that meets the proposed resiliency criteria provides
00:58:25
significant benefit to offset any insufficiency
00:58:28
of the economic savings or reliability benefits.
00:58:32
That's, that's listed in the, in the PGRR so Watts
00:58:37
written that way. And so we
00:58:41
do recommend this one to ROS for consideration and that's
00:58:44
based on the ERCOT comments
00:58:48
dated 1011.
Item 11.3 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan
00:58:50
So PGRR119
00:58:55
stability constraint modeling
00:58:58
assumptions in the RTP. This is the first time PLWG
00:59:02
saw this one. ERCOT did review this picture
00:59:06
which formalizes the existing practice in which ERCOT applies the
00:59:10
reliability margin to stability constraints
00:59:13
when the constraint is modeled in the RTP reliability and economic
00:59:17
base cases. We did read this once so we did ask to
00:59:20
table this one for further discussion.
Item 11.4 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects - PLWG - Possible Vote
00:59:26
So NPRR1247 incorporation
00:59:30
of congestion cost savings hey Dylan, can we skip over this one for a
00:59:34
second? Okay. And can we skip over 12:47 for
00:59:37
a second and we'll come back to those. Thank you.
00:59:41
Okay, so we do have this on our agendas,
00:59:46
these NERC roundtables. We've been pretty busy to really dig into these in too
00:59:49
much detail. Two things we're tracking is
00:59:53
NERC CIP-014-4.
00:59:56
It's going through a revision process. It was up
01:00:00
for a ballot yesterday. I did hear it. If anybody's tracking this,
01:00:03
it did fail. I did did hear that this morning. So that's
01:00:07
something we're continuing to look at. Also something on our hot Topics
01:00:10
plate is NERC TPL-008-1.
01:00:15
which is the transmission planning performance requirements for extreme weather.
01:00:19
So if these are important to you, these are, these are hot topics at the
01:00:23
NERC level for planners.
01:00:27
I think there's one more slide on our open action
01:00:30
items. Review of load in the planning guide.
01:00:34
That's the big L, little L revisions that we're
01:00:38
going to do based on language that came out of PGRR107.
01:00:42
Haven't had much time to TAC this. With everything on PLWG's plate,
01:00:45
this pretty new action item for us. So we'll, we'll take
01:00:49
it up in October. Yeah. And Dylan,
01:00:51
November. Susie let me know that she worked with you on some language.
01:00:55
So we'll look at that at the end of the meeting. So that's in
01:00:59
our open action items. Okay,
01:01:02
very good. Yeah. Before we go back to
01:01:05
NPRR1247, let's see what the will of the group is
01:01:09
on. PGRR117 as still in said this
01:01:13
is right for us to take up and PLWG recommended
01:01:17
the October 11th ERCOT comments.
01:01:23
Any concerns with moving this one forward?
01:01:33
All right, Erin, let's add to the combo ballot for now.
01:01:39
Can I have a question? Go ahead.
01:01:42
So on the resiliency figure, I think there is an IEA posted but
01:01:46
this doesn't come to here. But it's a no impact ia. I think if
01:01:51
you all want to consider that and
01:01:55
approve it, it'll probably go to the next phase.
01:01:59
Well, we would get it next month.
01:02:02
The only way to consider the IA at the
01:02:06
same time as language is to grant urgent
01:02:10
status. So, you know, if that's
01:02:14
the will of the group, we can certainly take a vote to see if,
01:02:17
you know, they are in favor of granting urgent status which would
01:02:20
allow the committee to
01:02:24
go ahead and consider the language and IA today.
01:02:29
Yeah, it's a no impact ia so I'll leave it up to the
01:02:35
ROS. Thank you. I mean I didn't know we were under
01:02:39
the strict time constraint on that one. So I would just assume follow
01:02:42
the normal process. Just approve the language today, let it come back to
01:02:46
the IA next month.
01:02:50
That's fine. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
01:02:56
Okay, so with that, let's talk about
01:02:59
how we're going to lay out 12:40.
01:03:03
So Dylan's got the floor on a couple of things. He's going to give us
01:03:06
an overview of the purpose of the NPRR.
01:03:11
Then he's going to give us the outcome of this special October
01:03:14
29th meeting. Dylan, thank you so much for holding that meeting. I think we had
01:03:18
a really good discussion. So he's going to talk about that.
01:03:22
And then what came out of that was a PLWG
01:03:26
draft that used luminant comments as the base comments and
01:03:31
really three main changes to highlight with that language. So he's
01:03:34
going to take that on for us and then I
01:03:39
will take on the part of overviewing ERCOT's comments that were
01:03:43
filed after the PLWG meeting and then kind of
01:03:46
lay out our options for a vote today. Sound fair?
01:03:50
Okay. All right, Dylan,
01:03:54
I apologize. Kayte, before we proceed, I just wanted to get clarification
01:03:58
on PGRR117 that we are adding that to the combo ballot.
01:04:02
Right. Okay,
01:04:07
there it is.
01:04:10
Erin. Okay, so if you could take us back to Dylan's
01:04:15
slides, there should
01:04:19
be a PLWG update from October 16th
01:04:23
on NPRR1247. Yep, that's, that's it.
01:04:27
So we did talk about this at our regular October 16th meeting.
01:04:31
And background is this first bullet based on PUC rulemaking, ERCOT with
01:04:35
supportive energy plus environmental economics as
01:04:39
E3 and in consultation with PUC staff
01:04:43
developed a congestion cost savings test to be used in congestion
01:04:47
project evaluation. NPRR1247
01:04:51
incorporates the E3 recommended cost congestion
01:04:55
cost savings test and ERCOT's economic
01:04:58
evaluation. So in the October meeting
01:05:01
we looked at a lot of sets of comments and
01:05:05
we also reviewed ERCOT's draft white paper Congestion
01:05:09
Cost Savings Evaluation Test guideline.
01:05:12
You'll hear more discussion on white
01:05:15
papers. So this, I'll call this white paper one.
01:05:19
There's, there's two of them that they're going to be up for discussion.
01:05:26
So, so based on where we were headed on October 16,
01:05:30
we decided a special meeting would be helpful to get this one
01:05:33
thoroughly reviewed. So on October 29th we did hold a
01:05:37
special meeting. We only discussed NPRR1247. At that meeting
01:05:41
we had a good set of comments submitted.
01:05:45
They're listed there from those entities. So we
01:05:49
did have discussion in the and the major topics of discussion
01:05:52
was included Modeling Generation not meeting,
01:05:56
Planning Guide 6.9 and Economic Analysis references
01:06:00
to the white paper Impact of Weather Uncertainty
01:06:04
and Transmission Outages and Economic Project Evaluations.
01:06:07
That's white paper number two. White paper number one
01:06:10
was on the previous slide and that's adding those Y papers into the protocols
01:06:14
and incorporation of the PUCT value of loss load the
01:06:18
Vols in the calculations.
01:06:26
So based on discussions and starting
01:06:29
with the luminant comments that. That's the 102824
01:06:34
set of comments. That's the last set received
01:06:37
on NPRR1247 PLWG prepare draft reply comments
01:06:42
for consideration today.
01:06:45
Now I'll say this third bullet. ERCOT plans to revisit
01:06:49
generation modeling assumptions and reliability and economic studies.
01:06:53
The Planning Guide 6.9 discussion
01:06:57
in a future PGRR or NPRR. You'll hear more about
01:07:01
that when we look through the comments.
01:07:08
So Erin, if you could pull up those draft red lines for us.
01:07:29
I also might suggest
01:07:32
that we put that in the review mode where we just see the PLWG
01:07:36
changes. I think that would help it help highlight those and make it
01:07:40
easier for Dylan to talk through.
01:07:48
It looks like it's looking like what we're seeing. This would
01:07:52
be the first strike by in PLWG comments. We did
01:07:56
strike the reference to Planning Guide 6.9 that
01:08:00
was offered by Reliant and Reliance Comments.
01:08:04
So the strike here was based on ERCOT coming back
01:08:08
with a later PGRR or NPRR to
01:08:12
address how that's going to be handled.
01:08:17
The addition of generation into planning models beyond
01:08:21
what's spelled out in Planning Guide 6.9, that's that strike.
01:08:29
And this second strike is just striking the same thing out of the gray
01:08:32
box. So it's. It's struck there as well.
01:08:47
Okay. I believe in our version we struck the.
01:08:50
The VOLL language. Did that not get that
01:08:54
it was struck in the PLWG comments,
01:08:58
but not struck by plwg? It was just in there,
01:09:02
which is a paragraph before that
01:09:08
was one of the three points of discussion.
01:09:20
Dylan, this is Aaron with ERCOT.
01:09:25
I apologize.
01:09:28
Where exactly are you talking about the role in
01:09:32
paragraph six?
01:09:37
All the way at the bottom.
01:09:46
It's weird because it looks like 65. I think
01:09:49
one more paragraph down. I'm not sure what the paragraph numbers are.
01:09:54
That right there,
01:09:57
that paragraph with the VOL
01:10:00
language was struck in ERCOT's 1023 comments
01:10:05
and not changed by PLWG. So that
01:10:10
I guess it doesn't matter. We're just looking at PLWG comments because
01:10:14
that was a point of that.
01:10:18
That's why we're not seeing it because we're only looking at the PLWG
01:10:22
comments. And if this was something that was struck by ERCOT, it wouldn't
01:10:25
show in this view. Okay, Gotcha. So I can go
01:10:29
ahead and go back to all reviewers so you can see that change.
01:10:35
That's fine. This paragraph starts to get busy, but go
01:10:38
ahead and do that.
01:10:42
There we go. I believe right there that PLWG
01:10:46
accepted From ERCOT comments 10:23
01:10:55
and then the additions or the,
01:10:59
the addition there on white papers
01:11:03
that was submitted by, in the joint commenters comments
01:11:07
I think from the 1023 comments to add that back. And that
01:11:11
was added back into this set of comments by PLWG.
01:11:15
So the white paper comments there, that's white paper one
01:11:19
reference to the,
01:11:24
to the, to the evaluation guide
01:11:28
is the congestion cost savings test evaluation guide white paper one
01:11:32
that was added by PLWG comments. And then paragraph
01:11:35
seven which
01:11:39
is struck, this entire paragraph is struck in ERCOT's comments and PLWG
01:11:44
comments added back. This is white paper number two which is the
01:11:48
reference to the impact of weather uncertainty and transmission outages on
01:11:52
economic project evaluations.
01:12:09
And that takes us to the end of the PLWG comments.
01:12:12
Right. So basically just highlighting that There were those
01:12:16
three changes, taking out that language with a reference to 6.9
01:12:20
and then adding in the language to the white papers.
01:12:24
And then where my part picks up in all of this is ERCOT subsequently
01:12:29
filed comments as they alluded to
01:12:33
at that special PLWG meeting.
01:12:36
So they agreed with the concerns raised by Reliant
01:12:40
joint commenters and luminant that it's appropriate to address
01:12:44
changes to planning guide section 6.9. And then
01:12:49
they are committing to filing
01:12:54
some future planning guides.
01:12:58
They are concerned about the adding those white
01:13:02
papers in there. They believe that that means that it makes
01:13:05
the white papers binding by adding them into
01:13:09
the protocol language. I think there are others to
01:13:12
address that the minute they may have already jumped into the queue.
01:13:25
So those were the two issues.
01:13:28
Was basically committing to something else to address the
01:13:32
PGRR language and then talking about removing those
01:13:36
two white papers. So that's a summary of ERCOT's comments
01:13:41
and then let's kind of lay out what we,
01:13:47
what we can do here in terms of a vote.
01:13:50
So really what we're
01:13:54
talking about is the language in paragraph 6
01:13:57
and 7. What, what do we do with those?
01:14:02
So do we want to include some language of it,
01:14:07
some form? Do we want to take it out? Taking it out reverts us
01:14:10
back to ERCOT's comments.
01:14:14
So I will add that I am feeling
01:14:18
a lot of pressure to vote something out today based
01:14:23
on the TAC discussion, based on input from ERCOT
01:14:27
staff and PUC staff and even a
01:14:30
PUC commissioner. So we have,
01:14:34
you know, a couple of options. We can look at this PLWG draft.
01:14:38
Is that something we want to move forward? Do we want to move forward with
01:14:40
the ERCOT comments that take that language
01:14:44
out? You know, the luminant
01:14:47
comments had the PGRR language in which if you guys are okay
01:14:51
with the commitment from ERCOT to put that in a separate
01:14:55
upcoming, then that again would revert
01:14:59
us back to the ERCOT language. So there are basically two before us.
01:15:03
We have a queue building and I would ask that we not
01:15:07
rehash what was discussed at PLWG. Those were two very in
01:15:11
depth discussions and I think Dylan did a great job of trying to summarize
01:15:15
those. So I'm looking for comments from
01:15:18
members that help move this item forward.
01:15:22
So with that, I think ethos first in the queue.
01:15:28
Yeah, thank you, Katie. So just a clarification
01:15:32
and a request. The clarification is field WG has
01:15:35
draft comments, but these are not official comments that we
01:15:39
can vote on at this point.
01:15:42
And then just to make sure I'm summarizing this in my mind correctly,
01:15:46
the only difference between the ERCOT comments
01:15:52
on October 23rd and the PLWG at
01:15:56
this time, the PLWG draft comments is
01:16:00
really the language, what's left of the language that's
01:16:03
referring to the two white pivots. Did I summarize this correctly?
01:16:08
You did. Thank you for somebody needs
01:16:11
to mute so I can respond.
01:16:20
Working on it.
01:16:25
Okay, thank you. That is correct,
01:16:28
Ethar. And thank you for talking about it not being official. We would
01:16:32
have to adopt these as ROS comments
01:16:36
to make them something that we could vote on
01:16:41
with. The idea of those would be filed after we submit
01:16:45
our vote. So thank you for correcting that. But yes, you did summarize it correctly.
01:16:49
Okay, good deal. So granted that the only language that's
01:16:53
left that we're discussing here is those references to the white paper,
01:16:56
I think ERCOT had included some reasoning in
01:17:00
their comments. Could anyone from ERCOT address
01:17:04
this situation here and just talk about, you know,
01:17:07
why these should or shouldn't be here?
01:17:15
That was in ERCOT's comments.
01:17:23
This is Matt Arthur. Yeah, go ahead. I defer to how you all
01:17:26
would like to TAC it. Yes, I think that we endeavored to lay out our
01:17:30
thinking on whether or not to include the white papers in
01:17:34
ERCOT's most recent comments. But it would be helpful. I can run
01:17:38
through that. I tried to do that. Matt, did I summarize
01:17:42
it correctly and the idea that you are thinking that by including those white
01:17:45
papers that it would be. They would be Binding in nature now.
01:17:51
Excuse me. Yes, that's right. And so I think
01:17:54
to the extent that something would be binding,
01:17:58
we would, rather than referencing it in a white paper, just put
01:18:04
those requirements actually into the protocols or planning guides.
01:18:08
And specifically for the weather
01:18:12
scenario and transmission outage related white paper, we have
01:18:17
PPC rule reasons for thinking that that should remain discretionary.
01:18:23
Okay, so what you're saying,
01:18:26
Matt, is the best way to do this. If you need a reference to the
01:18:30
weapon, completely change the language, state whatever language
01:18:33
is in them and move it into the protocol and planning guide. And I
01:18:37
think I heard ERCOT say that this referencing use is something that
01:18:41
hasn't been done in the past as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.
01:18:46
So if that's the situation, I would like to make a motion
01:18:50
to approve NPRR1247 with the ERCOT comments
01:18:55
on October 25th.
01:19:08
Okay, so I've got to pause and see if
01:19:11
I have a second on that motion.
01:19:17
Mass quality. We second. Okay, so we do have a second.
01:19:22
I would like to get through the next few people
01:19:26
in the queue before we take that vote.
01:19:33
So, Alex, I believe you're next.
01:19:37
Thank you, Katie.
01:19:43
We did not file written comments in response to ERCOT's last
01:19:47
comments. Thought we would have a chance to speak here today
01:19:52
briefly. We do appreciate all the work that was done the double
01:19:55
PLWG meeting. Thank you, Dylan.
01:19:59
I did specifically, you know, want to address
01:20:02
a couple things in ERCOT's comments. One was appreciation. They did add
01:20:06
in what we asked for, commitment that
01:20:09
they will discuss ongoing changes to the white papers with plwg,
01:20:14
have more transparency there and utilize that,
01:20:19
the free labor that we have in PLWG to help
01:20:23
solve some of these challenging problems. The one piece
01:20:27
I did want to clarify, I'm not sure
01:20:31
why it's still confusing. It does.
01:20:33
ERCOT understands the joint commenters wish to reference these
01:20:37
white papers in order to make them binding. That's not correct.
01:20:41
ERCOT is. ERCOT staff said
01:20:45
earlier in previous PLWG meeting that
01:20:48
those were already binding and that that's what what
01:20:52
they're going to do because they've presented it that way. We were not trying to
01:20:56
make them any more binding and in fact we changed the language in PLWG
01:21:00
that's here. It says in doing this that they may perform
01:21:03
these analyses as it's listed in the white paper.
01:21:07
The purpose of referencing them here is
01:21:11
simply to provide that transparency as a placeholder
01:21:15
for the next changes that are going to be made. Once we get this
01:21:19
right, once the planning guide is updated, strike this back out again,
01:21:23
but in the meantime let people know where they can find this information
01:21:26
on the details. That's all we were asking for here. We're not making anything binding.
01:21:31
The versions can be updated as it's changed. There's nothing binding
01:21:35
about those documents. There's no vote that has to happen for them to change them.
01:21:38
We do appreciate their commitment to transparently address
01:21:41
them. But this is not making the white papers binding. It's just
01:21:46
letting people know they exist and where to find
01:21:49
it until we get it fixed. What we really would
01:21:53
like to see is a procedure manual,
01:21:56
something that we could have updated more easily
01:22:00
than something that's in the protocols. Not have to go through the huge process,
01:22:04
but that is documented and binding
01:22:08
and robust. Would be much like
01:22:11
we have the DWG that we voted on today. Could we have
01:22:15
something like that for our planning procedure
01:22:20
manual? That's what we would ultimately want, but there has not been time to get
01:22:23
there. So just wanted to clarify, we're not trying to make these
01:22:26
binding. They already exist. We're just referencing them
01:22:30
for visibility and transparency and they can be updated.
01:22:38
Matt, did you want to respond?
01:22:43
Yes, this is Matt Arth. So I
01:22:48
think I hear what Alex is
01:22:52
saying and I think binding, I guess
01:22:56
I'm viewing that as there
01:22:59
is legally binding things that are approved
01:23:04
through the stakeholder committees and ultimately approved
01:23:07
by the PUC. And then there is binding
01:23:11
in the sense that any white paper or
01:23:15
the business practice manuals that ERCOT puts out is
01:23:19
intended to provide transparency about how ERCOT
01:23:23
plans to perform more detailed aspects
01:23:27
of any process. And so that those documents are
01:23:32
binding in the sense that they are a commitment by ERCOT
01:23:36
to perform task or a process in a certain
01:23:39
way, but they're not binding in the sense that they
01:23:43
were approved ultimately by the Public Utility Commission.
01:23:47
So I think, though I
01:23:51
don't want to belabor this point, but just for if
01:23:55
the intent is to provide transparency as to where those processes
01:23:59
can be found, I think that it's ERCOT's position that any
01:24:04
planning related white papers are
01:24:08
included in the planning page of the ERCOT website. And so we
01:24:11
would believe that that is sufficient transparency for folks to
01:24:15
know where to go to for, for those processes.
01:24:21
Okay, thanks Matt. Let's jump back to our queue.
01:24:24
Bill, you are up next.
01:24:28
Yeah, thanks. Want to just express some appreciation for the work on
01:24:32
this, the discussion at the special PLWG
01:24:35
meeting and the consideration of our comments.
01:24:39
And just to be clear, the motion on the table is to prove approve the
01:24:42
PLWG comments. Correct. Those who approve
01:24:46
the ERCOT comments. ERCOT comments. Oh, sorry. Okay.
01:24:50
The latest version of the ERCOT comments, did they include
01:24:54
the transparency piece? I think that was accepted.
01:24:59
Do you think we could bring up the version of the comments that are part
01:25:02
of the motion? Just want to make sure we know we're voting on.
01:25:05
So those would be the October 23rd comments, which I
01:25:08
think you made changes on top of.
01:25:12
Okay.
01:25:15
Okay. I did want to clarify
01:25:20
one of the concerns that we had and ask a question of ERCOT
01:25:24
staff. The comments that ERCOT filed on November
01:25:28
1, very reassuring of acknowledging the
01:25:32
modeling issue that we face.
01:25:36
We admit that it does not not only impacts the congestion cost savings test,
01:25:39
but also the reliability criteria and the production cost savings test
01:25:43
in terms of trying to address the supply demand deficiency
01:25:47
in the models. And how do we manage that?
01:25:51
Our concerns remain with the fact that we
01:25:54
don't know the methodology to determine yet, where we place
01:25:58
additional generation in the model that hasn't met the 6.9 criteria and
01:26:02
the impacts that that alone would have on
01:26:07
justifying congestion cost projects.
01:26:11
We are assuming, however, that without that methodology
01:26:15
defined yet, which we admit
01:26:19
the process provided by ERCOT,
01:26:22
it makes more sense, is more efficient, it should be in the planning guides,
01:26:26
but we assume that there won't be any transmission
01:26:29
projects approved through the congestion cost savings test until that is
01:26:33
defined. Is that a fair assumption?
01:26:38
I don't know how we would do that now given the state of
01:26:41
the transmission models, we would have to complete that process first.
01:26:45
Correct. Can I comment for
01:26:49
this? So I, I think
01:26:52
we would follow the current process which allows you to,
01:26:56
you know, take a project to RPG review and you
01:27:00
know, you people can review the merits of the project. We're not
01:27:03
saying like we're going to stop all the projects until 6.9 or the
01:27:07
changes is approved. That's a process, it will play out. It's similar to
01:27:10
what we have for the reliability projects. We will, you know, we'll let the projects
01:27:14
proceed if there are changes. Yes, we will, you know,
01:27:18
those will be applicable when they are implemented.
01:27:21
But the current process, we're not holding projects because we haven't resolved
01:27:25
6.9. So I'm
01:27:28
curious then, what do you do in terms of
01:27:32
the supply and demand efficiency in the models right before we have
01:27:36
a process defined. What would you do now? I'm just curious. Yeah. This year
01:27:40
RTP is following the assumptions which
01:27:44
we had to go beyond 6.9 and there are projects identified there
01:27:48
and that will take the normal approval process which is
01:27:52
going through RPG and you know the
01:27:56
merits of those individual projects which we assessed as part of RPG.
01:27:59
If there are sensitivity studies we have to perform, we will do that as part
01:28:03
of RPG as required.
01:28:06
But until this is unique in this year, it's like,
01:28:09
yeah, we have deficiencies in terms of
01:28:12
generation. We make assumptions. As I noted in the PLWG discussions,
01:28:16
this is different from what we have done in the past. We have used load
01:28:19
scaling as an option to do this. Now we have, you know,
01:28:23
we have to go beyond that because load scaling was not the feasible option
01:28:27
in this RTP. So I guess that,
01:28:30
you know, my thinking is, yeah, we are.
01:28:35
We have to resolve the figure 6.9, but we're not
01:28:40
holding any projects. Let's let the projects, you know,
01:28:44
go through the ERCOT process, which includes RPG,
01:28:48
the stakeholders, everybody will have sufficient time to review those projects
01:28:52
and, you know, assess the need for
01:28:56
the project before it's approved on a project by project basis.
01:29:00
Yeah, okay. All right, thanks for that clarity.
01:29:04
We preferred the PLWG version of this NPRR
01:29:08
because it incorporated some additional changes that we had on transparency and posting information
01:29:13
for stakeholders to review. So we're probably a no on this
01:29:16
motion. Just want to make that. Sure, that's clear. Thanks.
01:29:31
Okay, I think that leaves Cyrus.
01:29:34
Yeah, I think my question was partially answered by the.
01:29:38
The discussion about the word binding. But in the ERCOT
01:29:42
comments on November 1, it says white papers
01:29:46
are not typically referenced in the protocols.
01:29:50
So do we have examples currently in
01:29:53
the protocols where white papers are referenced?
01:29:57
Because I think we all want transparency and it seems like the way
01:30:01
the language was written to include these white papers was written in a way
01:30:05
that it wouldn't be, quote unquote binding. But just
01:30:08
wondering, do we, do we actually have examples of white papers referenced
01:30:12
in protocols currently?
01:30:21
This is Matt Arthur. No examples to my
01:30:24
knowledge, but I haven't done an exhaustive search,
01:30:28
admittedly.
01:30:32
Thanks.
01:30:41
I see Ping just jumped in the queue.
01:30:44
Yes. I just want to make some clarifications about the
01:30:48
ERCOT 1023 comments based
01:30:52
on the comments Bill
01:30:56
just made. So in the 1023 comments,
01:30:59
ERCOT developed that on top of the reliant comments.
01:31:04
So 8 already incorporated
01:31:08
something from the Reliant comments,
01:31:12
like the posting of the input
01:31:16
and output results and also some
01:31:20
details about how the new congestion cost calculation
01:31:23
is performed. So the things we did not
01:31:27
incorporate from the Reliance comments
01:31:32
was the VOLL reference
01:31:35
that we suggested to have a bigger discussion at
01:31:39
future PLWG meetings.
01:31:42
So because that has a broader implication on the overall
01:31:46
planning process. And also the other one is the
01:31:50
6.9 generator in ERCOT also committed
01:31:53
to make planning guide changes and
01:31:57
which may include sensitivities that's needed if
01:32:02
we still need to add generators outside of
01:32:06
the 6.9 requirements. So I just want
01:32:10
to make sure it is clear what the ERCOT
01:32:14
1023 comments are about. So we do.
01:32:18
We did incorporate two comments from the Reliant
01:32:22
comments. Thanks. Thank you so much for
01:32:25
that clarity. I appreciate that.
01:32:30
Alex, did you want to voice over what you put in
01:32:33
the queue? Yeah, it was just one more
01:32:37
note that this. We understand it's not typical to reference white papers
01:32:41
in this way. It is just a placeholder until
01:32:45
we do the additional work that is expected and,
01:32:50
and will be happening soon to get the planning guide sorted and
01:32:54
another NPRR for any other adjustments that need to be made at which point that
01:32:57
can be struck. So it's just, it's just a placeholder. Add that transparency.
01:33:01
Note that there is already a process under development
01:33:05
and then we would, you know, of course remove that
01:33:09
once the planning guide has caught up.
01:33:20
Thanks, Alex. Looks like the last person in the queue is Lori
01:33:23
Block. Thank you. Can you hear me?
01:33:28
We can go ahead. Great. Just wanted to give some support for
01:33:32
what Alex is saying. Understand this is
01:33:35
a very unusual circumstance and, you know, there's a need
01:33:39
to get the NPRR approved. It's not something that
01:33:42
I think we should expect, you know, as a matter of course,
01:33:46
going forward because I think it is important for
01:33:50
certain technical details that are important to the process to be binding and
01:33:54
it is something of a concern that there are so many in the white papers
01:33:58
that will not be legally binding. But in order
01:34:01
to try to get this across the finish line, I guess this is a question
01:34:05
I have for Alex.
01:34:08
In the final approved version of
01:34:11
the protocol, is there any way to put,
01:34:15
maybe not in the actual protocol itself, but in maybe perhaps
01:34:19
some of the documents that go to the board
01:34:23
referencing these white papers and where they could be found with something like
01:34:27
that. Alex, appease your need to
01:34:30
have this issue about transparency so that
01:34:34
people who aren't as familiar with all the ERCOT webpages would
01:34:37
know where to find these.
01:34:41
That was one of, one of the motivations as well. Just our
01:34:46
staff has said that people know where to find these. They're there on the planning,
01:34:49
planning section. But we do find that new
01:34:53
stakeholders are often confused about where all the information is. And just
01:34:57
given that this is such a hot issue and still under development,
01:35:00
that this would be a way to make sure people are more quickly
01:35:04
able to find those and know that Those do exist and
01:35:08
when they're updated, we don't reference the version number. There's nothing
01:35:12
locking into the specific version. It's just the title and the
01:35:16
general location so that you
01:35:20
can go find the most current version. Again, we were expecting those
01:35:23
to change. We're expecting the planning guide to be updated and then we would strike
01:35:26
this as far as the long term and how to help
01:35:29
people with that. That is another good thought. Maybe they could,
01:35:33
we could just point to that in the planning guide.
01:35:37
Again, another concept that really seems like a workable solution
01:35:41
would be to develop a procedure manual that would be easy
01:35:44
to find and very thorough,
01:35:47
but with all the maze and might and caveats
01:35:51
that are appropriate for the discretion that's needed for a lot of the
01:35:55
details. So let me make sure I
01:35:58
understand what Lori is suggesting. So in
01:36:02
the 1023 comments you're asking for the
01:36:06
narrative portion of that to be revised to
01:36:10
point to the particular page on the website or however
01:36:14
we can more eloquently word that. Is that correct?
01:36:19
Just. And maybe ERCOT can help us out here. Just is there some
01:36:23
approach that we can take where, you know, if ERCOT's
01:36:27
not comfortable putting this language in the actual protocol,
01:36:30
is there something else that we can do that would point people
01:36:33
to where these white papers will be located? Because I do agree with
01:36:37
Alex, there's very important information in these white papers that people will
01:36:41
want to look at and review and I think it is important that we
01:36:44
make them easily accessible to people. So just
01:36:48
looking for some middle ground approach. Maybe Matt, maybe you
01:36:51
have some suggestion there, but that was the idea.
01:36:56
I'll let Matt or Prabhu or Ping respond.
01:37:01
This is Matt. I'm just checking with the
01:37:05
folks over here. If I understand correctly, it's set. So for one thing we were,
01:37:12
we would hope that some of that transparency would be provided by the November
01:37:16
1, ERCOT comments. That does kind of reference
01:37:20
both of those white papers. But we're trying to see if
01:37:24
we can revise after the fact the preamble
01:37:30
to NPRR1247. I think it's the justification
01:37:34
of reason for revision and market impacts, maybe to reference
01:37:40
that these two white papers are out
01:37:43
there and would be applied to the congestion
01:37:46
cost savings test. Just might
01:37:51
ask Erin and others thoughts on whether that's possible.
01:38:02
Hey Matt, this is Corey Phillips, ERCOT Market Rules. I'll jump in on
01:38:05
this one. And yes, the COVID page of any revision request
01:38:09
is open for that sort of reference.
01:38:13
But I guess going back to what I understood Alex's
01:38:16
concern To be was despite all of the things we put on
01:38:20
our various landing pages of say, like you're trying to figure out planning.
01:38:23
Here's where you go for all the planning stuff. If the, if the reader
01:38:27
that we're trying to target won't know how to navigate the ERCOT
01:38:30
website, I'm not sure they would know to navigate the ERCOT website
01:38:34
to go to NPRR1247 to find those references.
01:38:37
So. But yes, the COVID pages of revision requests are free to
01:38:40
make all sorts of extra references that aren't formally then memorialized
01:38:44
in the protocols and guides.
01:38:48
I think that would be a great idea. Alex, what do you think about
01:38:52
that?
01:38:58
I think that's an improvement over
01:39:03
where we are. But I agree with what Corey
01:39:07
just said. It might not solve the fundamental problem. It is a step in
01:39:10
the right direction. And the two problems being
01:39:15
that the transparency
01:39:18
and that it enhances transparency. Again, did people know where to go
01:39:22
find the protocols and read those. But that's a starting point. It's the one.
01:39:26
It is the one source of truth. So it
01:39:30
doesn't solve that part of the problem. And the piece of it is that
01:39:34
it is. We are seeing it as a placeholder,
01:39:37
that this is still an urgent matter. This is not going to be resolved.
01:39:41
We're rushing this NPRR through, but it's not
01:39:44
finished. And so this is a placeholder that would be struck
01:39:48
once it is finished. It's not
01:39:51
ideal. You know, our solution is not perfect either. I do
01:39:55
agree that's. That is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't really solve
01:39:59
all the problems we were trying to insert
01:40:02
here.
01:40:10
Let's go to Bill and then we'll circle back. I just want
01:40:14
to thank Ping for that clarity. That helps
01:40:17
for sure. But we do share the concerns that Alexis
01:40:20
raised on the transparency. So. But again, we prefer
01:40:24
the PLWG version just
01:40:28
because of that language that's in there. And I like where
01:40:32
this is going with what Lori Block suggesting. So maybe there's some
01:40:35
compromise on how we could kind of bridge that gap.
01:40:38
Thanks.
01:40:44
Okay, so let's circle back to that with Corey's
01:40:48
clarity that we could revise.
01:40:51
Matt, what are your thoughts?
01:40:55
Can we take a look at that section of the preamble?
01:40:59
Yes, this is Matt. I think ERCOT is definitely
01:41:02
open to that, to referencing the two white papers
01:41:06
in the preamble, the NPRR1247.
01:41:10
If the best way to accomplish that is through desktop
01:41:14
edits here, we can, we can do that. Or if
01:41:19
it's better to TAC that subsequently, we could also do that.
01:41:39
Yeah, it is. Yeah.
01:41:43
Right. It's. It's up to you guys. If you want to table
01:41:48
this and let ERCOT file some additional comments with redlines,
01:41:52
we can do that.
01:42:01
Sorry, this is Matt Arthur again, just in terms
01:42:04
of process. I guess so.
01:42:08
So we would request
01:42:11
that. Well,
01:42:15
so I think our hope is that this would go, if this
01:42:19
were to be voted on today, that this
01:42:22
would then go to PRS next week.
01:42:27
If this is to get to the December board, I guess I
01:42:31
would say then this would need to go to PRS next week.
01:42:34
PRS would need to grant urgency to consider
01:42:38
the language and the IA at the same time. And then
01:42:42
it would go to TAC immediately after that. I forget
01:42:45
if that's the following week or the same week before
01:42:49
going to the board. So it's quite a tight. So it's the following week.
01:42:52
Yeah. So I think for that reason we would ask
01:42:57
that this not be tabled today, but would
01:43:04
ask for it to be voted on today by ROS
01:43:09
for the revisions to the preamble. I guess
01:43:13
just thinking out loud here, but if
01:43:17
that can be accomplished through comment filing then,
01:43:22
which I think that it probably could, then ERCOT
01:43:26
could file comments making those revisions to the preamble
01:43:30
for PRS consideration next week and
01:43:36
then hopefully that would give you all the comfort to
01:43:40
take the action that you choose to take today.
01:43:44
I'm going to take that back to Laurie and Alex and see what their comfort
01:43:47
level with that suggestion is.
01:43:56
Yeah, I don't have a problem with adding additional clarification
01:44:00
to the preamble later. I do want to,
01:44:05
I think we can move a version forward today.
01:44:10
I do prefer the PLWG version,
01:44:13
but I don't see why ROS can't. But today.
01:44:21
Okay. I also prefer the PLWG
01:44:25
version as well, but in the interest of trying to get this
01:44:29
passed, if that doesn't get passed, and I think putting it
01:44:33
in the preamble would be a good compromise.
01:44:40
Yes, that would be my ask. If the ERCOT version is
01:44:43
approved today, then please
01:44:47
do add that. Otherwise we still have
01:44:51
a vote or multiple votes to go to here. So let's
01:44:54
see how it goes. Okay. Erin, do you have
01:44:58
a comment? Yes. It sounds like we're still
01:45:02
working through what the will of the committee is, but there,
01:45:06
there's a few ways we can go about it. You know
01:45:10
that. I just want to remind everyone that we do have a motion
01:45:14
on the table to endorse NPRR
01:45:18
as amended by the 10, 23, 24 ERCOT comments.
01:45:21
So please keep that in mind. As you're discussing this,
01:45:25
but, you know, one of the things that you could do is go ahead and
01:45:28
vote on this with the promise to ERCOT,
01:45:32
with the promise to submit comments revised, revising the COVID page language
01:45:36
as discussed. The other option is we can go ahead
01:45:40
and, you know, see vote on this,
01:45:44
or we can ask the mover and seconder if they want
01:45:47
to withdraw it and revise them and do another
01:45:51
motion, as you're seeing
01:45:54
here, to endorse, as amended by the ERCOT comments as
01:45:58
revised by ros. And we can go ahead and do desktop
01:46:01
edits now, adding those revisions
01:46:05
to the ERCOT comments.
01:46:10
So I hope that makes sense to everyone to kind of help guide what
01:46:13
our options are here.
01:46:16
So first, in short, first option is to
01:46:20
go ahead and vote with this and then with
01:46:25
a promise to file comments, or we can go ahead and do that
01:46:28
work here today and revise.
01:46:32
So let's let Ethar talk. He's. He has a comment.
01:46:38
Yeah. My preference of the options that were listed and thanks
01:46:42
for the options, is that we move forward with voting on this one
01:46:45
and then Ekat can file comments to the
01:46:49
preamble and they can be submitted to PRS Point.
01:46:57
Okay. And then I will recognize Diana, PRS Chair.
01:47:01
I think you had a comment. Good morning, everybody.
01:47:05
Thank you, Katie, I just wanted to say thank you for
01:47:08
everybody's discussion this morning. And, Erin, thank you for
01:47:12
the suggestions for everybody this morning as well. I think
01:47:16
our goal was to have one
01:47:20
recommendation, which it looks like y'all are working on.
01:47:24
And I hear Corey on the line, so he can correct me if I if
01:47:27
I'm going too far off. If there is whatever
01:47:32
decision ROS makes today, we can take it up next week
01:47:36
at PRS. And there can also be additional desktop edits
01:47:41
to that consideration as we are voting on that item.
01:47:45
So if there are additional versions or
01:47:49
iterations or preamble edits that you
01:47:53
know were submitted by ERCOT, or if someone sees something that may be
01:47:57
different from this morning, please know that we are open to
01:48:01
those considerations in what ROS sends
01:48:04
to PRS next week, we will take a look at.
01:48:07
But the desktop edits in the comments don't stop here.
01:48:11
If there are comments by market participants in addition to
01:48:15
ERCOT that would like PRS to look at something next week, we would welcome
01:48:19
those as well. So I just wanted to reiterate what Erin said.
01:48:23
For next week, it would have to be voted on for urgency in order
01:48:27
for us to look at language and the implementation and
01:48:30
the budget associated with it. But just as A reminder, if folks
01:48:34
have comments or if they see something after today's ROS and
01:48:38
it's voted on, that there is still time. Thank you.
01:48:43
Yeah, Diana, I appreciate that reassurance.
01:48:48
Okay, so.
01:48:54
All right, thanks, Corey. Okay, so that, that takes us
01:48:57
back to the motion that we have
01:49:01
here on the screen, which is with the ERCOT
01:49:06
1023 comments. I will
01:49:09
let you know with my luminant hat on, taking my chair hat off.
01:49:13
I will abstain. We did file comments that talked about the
01:49:16
procedural schedule on this and we feel like we needed
01:49:19
more time to look through these issues and how to
01:49:23
work out some of the issues about what would be in the planning guides and
01:49:26
how that all fits together. And I feel like we've been,
01:49:30
you know, a little shortchanged on this timeline. So for that reason, I will be
01:49:34
abstaining.
01:49:44
Thank you, Katie. So the motion before
01:49:49
us is to endorse NPRR1247 as amended
01:49:52
by the 10, 2324 ERCOT comments.
01:49:56
We're going to go ahead and begin
01:50:01
with the consumers.
01:50:07
Cyrus? Yeah, I'm going to
01:50:10
abstain on this. I do think a little more time is needed,
01:50:15
but appreciate all the discussion.
01:50:19
Thank you. Mike.
01:50:22
Abstain.
01:50:29
Mary Elen for Nabaraj. Yes.
01:50:34
I'm sorry, that was a yes. Yes.
01:50:37
Thank you. Moving on
01:50:41
to co ops. Barry.
01:50:44
Abstain.
01:50:49
Sandeep. Yes.
01:50:54
Paul.
01:50:58
Chris.
01:51:04
Independent generator. Brett.
01:51:08
No. Alex?
01:51:13
No. Katie,
01:51:16
you're abstaining. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you.
01:51:20
Kristen for Chase. Abstain.
01:51:24
Thank you.
01:51:28
Independent power marketers.
01:51:32
John for Adam.
01:51:35
Abstain.
01:51:42
Ian. Yes.
01:51:46
Ian for Resmi. Abstain. Thank you.
01:51:50
Thank you.
01:51:59
Independent reps. Matt.
01:52:02
Abstain. Thank you.
01:52:06
Jennifer. Abstain.
01:52:10
And abstain for Chris Hendricks as well.
01:52:14
Thank you.
01:52:18
Ming. Yes.
01:52:24
IOUs. Ether.
01:52:29
Yes. Thank you.
01:52:33
David for Wesley.
01:52:37
Rob for Chris. Yes.
01:52:42
Matthew. Yes.
01:52:46
Municipals. Kenneth.
01:52:59
Kenneth Bowen, can you hear me now? Yes, Sir. We can
01:53:02
hear you. Oh, sorry.
01:53:05
Yes. Thank you.
01:53:08
Matt. Yes. Thank you.
01:53:12
Imani. Yes.
01:53:16
Andrew for Chris.
01:53:20
Y I'm
01:53:53
gonna have to close.
01:54:53
Motion carries with 76.9% in favor with 11
01:54:58
abstentions.
01:55:04
Okay, thank you all for that very fruitful discussion.
01:55:08
ERCOT, thank you for committing to filing the comments in
01:55:11
advance of PRS. Next week we
01:55:15
shall see how that discussion goes. Dylan, thank you so much
01:55:18
for holding the meetings and getting us to this point at
01:55:22
plwg. We really appreciate your leadership.
01:55:26
Thanks, everybody. Thank you.
01:55:33
All right, so in our effort
01:55:37
to make our noon stop, I'm going to ask
01:55:42
the working group leaders that are left
01:55:46
because I believe we have NDSWG before we
01:55:49
get to the Combo ballot. NDSWG folks,
01:55:52
is there anything you want to highlight quickly from your update?
01:56:02
Can you hear me? We can go ahead.
01:56:06
Okay. Yes. Good morning.
01:56:11
Next page, I guess. I'm Gerardo
01:56:15
Camilla, by the way, from NDSWG chair.
Item 12 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - Gerardo Escamilla
01:56:18
Yes, the ICP handbook and the NPRR
01:56:23
modeling of 25 megawatts or
01:56:27
greater. Next slide,
01:56:30
please. Yes, the NPRR1234.
01:56:36
Pretty much it's been the same since our last presentation from
01:56:39
ERCOT. The one thing I just want to
01:56:43
just clarify is that currently we
01:56:47
identify loads as
01:56:51
whether they are large
01:56:55
customers, like data centers, whether they're commercial with
01:56:58
the residential. So we will now probably
01:57:01
be identifying if there is a single load owner or
01:57:06
with one or more multiple loads in
01:57:11
a station. Right. And whenever we model,
01:57:16
stations with one or two more
01:57:20
than one load will be identified.
01:57:23
Excuse me. Identifying if both or a single load
01:57:27
pertains to a single load owner with those characteristics.
01:57:31
So being 25 megawatts or larger for
01:57:37
the ICCP handbook that is
01:57:41
still under discussion. It has the
01:57:45
ERCOT would like to have the RTC project,
01:57:48
RTC Deep Project, go live first
01:57:54
for, you know, having, I guess, a better feel
01:57:58
of the, I guess the placing
01:58:02
of telemetry and all that. So before we actually take
01:58:07
another dive into the handbook, into the ICP handbook.
01:58:12
So that's still pending. And that's
01:58:16
my report. Thank you for your report.
01:58:20
Okay, that takes us to the combo ballot. So let's pull that up on the
01:58:24
screen.
01:58:32
Hey, Katie, sorry, I jumped in with another question
01:58:36
on NPRR1247. Okay, go ahead,
01:58:39
Caitlin. Thanks. And I want to reiterate,
01:58:43
Diana, thank you for all the work. I may have miss
01:58:47
this, but as we pointed out, to pass
01:58:51
kind of on the end of the year timeline, we would need to do
01:58:55
both the language and the urgency at PRS.
01:58:58
So ERCOT confirming, I guess that
01:59:02
they'd be prepared with the IA with the version that got voted
01:59:05
through today and then, you know,
01:59:08
kind of a reminder to the group and I don't know how this
01:59:11
would work, but I suspect we might get comments
01:59:16
from another party who had preferences for another
01:59:19
version. And then we'd likely need
01:59:23
the other month to see that ia. So I think something
01:59:26
just to, you know, be working on with ERCOT
01:59:30
or however that would work. So maybe that's first a question and a clarification from
01:59:34
ERCOT regarding
01:59:40
the IA for that they're
01:59:46
conferring. Okay.
01:59:52
This is Matt Arthur Thurcott. I don't believe if
01:59:59
comments were made to PRS or TAC for the
02:00:02
alternative version that's going on. That would not change the ia.
02:00:06
So ERCOT will plan to
02:00:10
be available to. We will post. Sorry,
02:00:14
just.
02:00:18
We'll be prepared to address the IA for
02:00:21
NPRR1247 NPRRs. And.
02:00:25
But. But yeah, to reiterate, it wouldn't change under
02:00:29
either version of the comments. Is that what you're asking, Caitlin? I think
02:00:33
so. Well, I think I'm just, you know, not wanting to dictate how the
02:00:37
outcome is. But I wanted to keep in mind that changes
02:00:41
to the version might create the need for
02:00:44
a longer timeline due to needing to be a revised ia.
02:00:48
But I think what I'm hearing from you is that either version that's been under
02:00:51
consideration would not need a change to the
02:00:54
ia. Is that correct? Yes, that's right.
02:00:59
Okay. I think that's a good thing for,
02:01:03
you know, parties who voted either way to know. So either version
02:01:06
wouldn't require a new IA
02:01:10
and could keep us on that urgent timeline at PRS.
02:01:15
Okay, thank you, Matt, and thanks, Katie, for entertaining
02:01:19
the late comments. Yep. Thanks, Caitlin.
02:01:22
Okay, Erin's gonna bring up the combo ballot now,
02:01:29
so I wanna make sure. Can we maybe scroll down.
02:01:33
If we scroll down a little bit, can we get everything on one page?
Item 13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich
02:01:37
Okay, so what we have here are the ROS
02:01:41
meeting minutes. The DWG procedural manual, which again
02:01:44
was just adding back end language that was not changed.
02:01:48
We have PGRR107, which is tied
02:01:52
to 1180, PGRR118 and
02:01:56
NOGRR268 which were both dealing with a single model under RTC.
02:02:00
All three of those had no impact.
02:02:04
And then PGRR120 was on the SSO.
02:02:07
ERCOT gave us a presentation and we referred that over to PLWG
02:02:11
and DWG 271,
02:02:14
we referred that over to PDCWG. That was
02:02:19
on the RRS limits. 1257 was related
02:02:22
and then PGRR117 was.
02:02:25
We approved as amended by the
02:02:29
ERCOT comments based on the PLWG recommendation.
02:02:33
Is everyone okay with all of those items remaining on the
02:02:37
combo ballot?
02:02:41
Okay. All right, Erin, can I get a first and
02:02:45
a second on that so that we can take our vote?
02:02:49
All right, Chris and Paul.
02:02:54
Okay, let's move forward with our vote.
02:02:59
Thank you, Katie. Starting with consumers.
02:03:03
Cyrus. Yes.
02:03:07
Mike. Yes. Thank you.
02:03:13
Mary Ellen for Nabaraj. Yes. Thank you.
02:03:20
Co ops.
02:03:22
Barry. Yes.
02:03:26
Sandeep. Yes. Paul.
02:03:30
Chris.
02:03:34
Independent generator. Brett. Yes.
02:03:37
Alex. Yes. Katie.
02:03:41
Yes. Thank you. Kristen for Chase.
02:03:45
Yes.
02:03:48
Independent power marketers. John for Adam.
02:03:54
Yes. Ian.
02:03:57
Yes. And yes. Thank you, Aaron. Thank you.
02:04:03
Independent reps. Matt. Kevin.
02:04:06
Sorry, Kevin. I almost did it again.
02:04:09
Yes. Thank you, sir. Jennifer.
02:04:13
Yes. And yes for Chris. Thank you.
02:04:17
Thank you. Ming.
02:04:20
Yes.
02:04:24
Investor owned utilities. Ether.
02:04:27
Yes. David for Wes.
02:04:30
Oh, thank you.
02:04:34
Rob. For Chris. Yes.
02:04:38
Matthew. Yes.
02:04:42
Municipals. Kenneth.
02:04:46
Yes. Matt. Yes.
02:04:50
Imani. Yes. Andrew For
02:04:54
Chris. Yes.
02:05:02
Okay, the motion
02:05:06
passes with 100% in favor. As you can see
02:05:09
on the screen, the tally vote or tally button is
02:05:13
not working. But let me go ahead and pull that back up.
02:06:26
I apologize. We upgraded to Windows 11 and
02:06:29
I have some really strange things going on with
02:06:35
this ballot. As you can see, the tally button disappeared on me,
02:06:41
but it is 100% in favor. And Katie, I.
02:06:45
My deepest apologies. Let me work on getting this up and running.
02:06:49
Okay, thank you. So, in the interest of time,
02:06:52
we have a few more working groups and
02:06:56
you've seen their updates. Is there anyone
02:06:59
that has questions about DWG,
02:07:02
IBRWG,
02:07:05
SSWG or OTWG?
02:07:10
Any. Any questions on any of those updates?
02:07:15
Okay, thank you for your leadership on those. Thank you for providing the updates.
02:07:20
Once Erin gets this tallied,
02:07:23
I'd like us to spend the remainder of our time going over these
02:07:26
open action items. I did send out an email to all
02:07:30
of the working group leadership to get their input on where
02:07:34
we are with those action items. So the interest
02:07:38
is trying to get those wrapped up by this month
02:07:42
or next so that we have a cleaner slate going into
Item 18 - Other Business - Katie Rich
02:07:45
2025. So, Erin, when you get a chance, if you can,
02:07:48
pull up those open action items and we're going to go through those.
02:07:53
Yes, ma'am.
02:08:02
Thank you.
Item 18.1 - Review Open Action Items List
02:08:16
Okay, so on this first one, I'm assuming Julia is
02:08:20
on the line. Do you feel like our work on, say, NOGRR245
02:08:25
and what's coming up subsequent to that has helped
02:08:28
us get to this issue?
Item 18.2.4 - System Protection Working Group - SPWG
02:08:32
Hi, Katie. We're still working on this topic.
02:08:35
So SPWG just sent me a
02:08:39
survey that they've done with TDSPS on this item and
02:08:43
we'll bring it up on November Agenda and then
02:08:46
basically the next step will be to decide if we need a
02:08:50
subsequent PGRR for this issue or
02:08:54
any kind of, like, binding document drafts for this. So we're
02:08:58
still working on it, but actively addressing
02:09:01
this topic. Okay, so we
02:09:04
will leave this one on there.
02:09:08
We just got an update on the ICCP handbook from ndswg,
02:09:13
so. So where do you feel this stands?
02:09:25
Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.
02:09:29
Yeah, I mean, we're still, like I said, you know,
02:09:32
eventually we'll be getting back to us from ERCOT
02:09:36
to do a review. So I
02:09:41
feel that this is still something we
02:09:44
have to look at.
02:09:49
Okay, thanks for your update.
02:10:02
All right, on the next one for otwg, I know
02:10:06
that Dennis asked for this to be added in there
02:10:09
for next Start resources. Is our
02:10:13
OTWG chair on to speak to this?
02:10:31
Okay, take it to the PLWG one.
02:10:35
I know that Dylan mentioned this during his update and Susie
02:10:39
has revised the language here. So I think we
02:10:43
are good on this one, especially since it's a new one.
02:10:48
And that takes us to the TAC assignment on epa. I think WMS
02:10:52
is leaving this on their agenda. We will leave it on ours.
02:10:56
Some of those are in the courts but as you know they can kind of
02:10:59
move quickly after that. So we'll leave that there.
02:11:06
So on this next one the calculating loads, load shedding
02:11:10
in real time. So I was one of the
02:11:14
ones that added this in a prior role.
02:11:17
But we now have NPRR1238
02:11:22
and it's associated NOGRR
02:11:25
so and this was considered
02:11:28
a backstop. So what do we feel about this
02:11:32
item now? Do we feel like our work is
02:11:36
complete on doing some sort of dynamic load
02:11:40
shed or do we need to leave this on here?
02:11:44
You think it's done? Oh, Ethar, you want to
02:11:48
comment on this one? Yeah Katie,
02:11:51
I think, I think this item is a little dated obviously.
02:11:55
No, we are 243 was approved a long time
02:11:59
ago. NOGRR56 was with gone and now
02:12:03
we have like you said, the DCL 1238 out there and
02:12:07
over 56. We ultimately have now NPRR1234
02:12:11
and PGRR115. I feel like the assignment has been dispersed
02:12:15
and either handled or being handled throughout the other
02:12:19
revisions that are simultaneously going through at
02:12:23
this time. So my recommendation is to drop this
02:12:27
item at this time unless someone has any specific need
02:12:30
to keep it.
02:12:34
Yeah. Chris, do you want to respond?
02:12:39
Yeah, thanks Kate. I just wanted to see can we get ERCOT to
02:12:43
comment on what their proposed language changes are going to be
02:12:47
for the other. No, that kind of revolve
02:12:51
around this with the vcls.
02:12:55
I don't know if Agee still on or the
02:13:08
reason for my asking. That was kind of our initial conversation.
02:13:11
I guess resolution for getting some of these large loads
02:13:16
do not be a big factor on our system
02:13:19
was to have real time and I know a lot of the larger tsps had
02:13:22
issues with that as far as getting real time data to be able to do
02:13:25
manual load shed. So that was the workaround with the BECL discussion.
02:13:30
So it just be nice to know what ERCOT's thinking before we
02:13:33
try to get their Comments and move forward for this
02:13:37
month and next month. Thank you.
02:13:42
So if we don't have anybody on ERCOT now, let's flag
02:13:46
this one for next month.
02:14:01
And the next one was the assignment on
02:14:04
September 6, the EEA 2 event.
02:14:07
I do believe that we looked at that
02:14:11
with several working groups after the fact. So in
02:14:15
my mind, I don't know that there are any lingering issues on this one.
02:14:19
Anybody else have a different point of view?
02:14:28
Okay, I think this one's on me to report back to TAC that
02:14:32
we feel like we've completed.
02:14:51
Okay, so that leads us to the parking lot item.
02:14:57
And if you guys recall, we just had the single model
02:15:01
items on our combo ballot.
02:15:05
So I'm not sure that
02:15:08
there's much left for us to do on this one.
02:15:12
I know Kenneth Ragsdale is kind of the expert on this topic, so not
02:15:16
sure if he's on or if there's someone else from ERCOT that can address this.
02:15:31
Okay, I will send ERCOT staff a note on this one after the fact.
02:15:48
All right, so going back to the agenda. Erin,
02:15:51
please.
02:16:00
All right, so that leaves two things remaining.
02:16:04
So our next meeting is December 5th. I know that
02:16:07
we are getting into the end of the year crunch.
02:16:12
I'm struggling to find days that I don't have an ERCOT meeting.
02:16:15
So the question before you is,
02:16:19
would you like to have that last meeting in person?
02:16:22
Would you prefer WebEx? What's the will of
02:16:26
the members?
02:16:30
Go ahead. Ian, as the chair,
02:16:33
I think it's your prerogative to figure out what's the
02:16:37
working groups have to provide and if there's anything we need to do.
02:16:40
I'm happy to have that time back because I'll be on vacation and won't be
02:16:43
here either way, but, you know,
02:16:47
but we'll still. We'll still have it. It's just a question of do we have
02:16:50
our gotcha self seated here or do we have ourselves
02:16:54
seated in whatever our office looks like? Then I say it's your
02:16:57
call. Okay. All right. I am.
02:17:00
I'm really tempted to do WebEx if that doesn't hurt anyone feelings.
02:17:04
Okay. All right, we'll get that changed to WebEx.
02:17:19
Okay, last thing that is not on
02:17:22
the agenda. Some of you may not know this,
02:17:25
but Pamela informed me yesterday
02:17:29
that she has taken a
02:17:33
new, exciting endeavor. So this will be her last time
02:17:36
helping us out with ROS. She has
02:17:40
been excellent to work with over this last year, and so
02:17:45
maybe you could all just give her a nice hand.
Item 19 - Adjourn
02:17:54
Thank you, guys. Okay, well, with that,
02:17:58
we will officially adjourn. I got under four
02:18:02
minutes, so thank you all. Enjoy the rest of your day
02:18:06
and happy Thanksgiving. If for some reason I don't see you before
02:18:09
then, thanks again.

02-ros-agenda-20241107

Oct 30, 2024 - docx - 54.9 KB

03-draft-minutes-ros-20241003

Oct 30, 2024 - doc - 237.5 KB

Systemplanningros_sept2024

Oct 10, 2024 - docx - 403.5 KB

September-2024-ercot-operations-report-public

Oct 24, 2024 - docx - 560 KB

Systemplanningros_sept2024

Nov 05, 2024 - docx - 403.4 KB

05-dwg-procedure-manual-revision-22-draft

Nov 05, 2024 - docx - 1.1 MB

06-november_ros_sso_prevention_pgrr120

Oct 30, 2024 - pdf - 125.2 KB

10-owg_ros_20241107

Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 48 KB

11-planning-working-group-report_10162024

Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 55.3 KB

11-1247nprr--draft-plwg-redlines-102924

Oct 30, 2024 - docx - 43.5 KB

12-ndswg_report_to_ros_10312024

Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 36.7 KB

14-dwg-report-to-ros---november-2024

Oct 30, 2024 - pptx - 61.5 KB

Meeting-materials-20241107

Oct 30, 2024 - zip - 5.4 MB

15-ibrwg-report-to-ros-110724

Nov 03, 2024 - docx - 35.4 KB

16-sswg-report-to-ros-11-7-2024

Nov 03, 2024 - pptx - 48.7 KB

Meeting-materials-20241107

Nov 03, 2024 - zip - 5.5 MB

Revision-request-ros-20241107

Oct 30, 2024 - zip - 4.2 MB

Meeting-materials-20241107

Nov 05, 2024 - zip - 6.6 MB

Revision-request-ros-20241107

Nov 05, 2024 - zip - 4.3 MB

Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - ERCOT Staff

Starts at 00:01:30

1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:03:55

2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:04:06

3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:05:58

4 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:06:40

5 - ERCOT Reports

Starts at 00:07:35

5.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee

Starts at 00:07:46

5.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan

Starts at 00:13:15

5.3 - DWG Procedure Manual - Vote - Erin Wasik-Gutierrez

Starts at 00:14:10

6 - ROS Revision Requests - Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:16:17

6.1 - PGRR107, Related to NPRR1180, Inclusion of Forecasted Load in Planning Analyses

Starts at 00:16:26

6.2 - PGRR118, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era

Starts at 00:17:09

6.3 - NOGRR268, Related to NPRR1246, Energy Storage Resource Terminology Alignment for the Single-Model Era

Starts at 00:17:13

6.4 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection

Starts at 00:18:24

6.5 - NOGRR271, Related to NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response

Starts at 00:47:45

7 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response - Possible Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:47:52

8 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:48:30

8.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment

Starts at 00:48:35

8.2 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG

Starts at 00:48:42

9 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 00:48:50

10 - Operations Working Group - OWG - Rickey Floyd

Starts at 00:50:08

10.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:50:36

10.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:50:54

10.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:51:39

11 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - Dylan Preas

Starts at 00:55:48

11.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:56:26

11.2 - PGRR117, Addition of Resiliency Assessment and Criteria to Reflect PUCT Rule Changes - PLWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:57:17

11.3 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan

Starts at 00:58:50

11.4 - NPRR1247, Incorporation of Congestion Cost Savings Test in Economic Evaluation of Transmission Projects - PLWG - Possible Vote

Starts at 00:59:26

12 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - Gerardo Escamilla

Starts at 01:56:18

13 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich

Starts at 02:01:37

18 - Other Business - Katie Rich

Starts at 02:07:45

18.1 - Review Open Action Items List

Starts at 02:08:16

18.2.4 - System Protection Working Group - SPWG

Starts at 02:08:32

19 - Adjourn

Starts at 02:17:54