12/12/2024 01:00 PM
Current Time 0:00
Duration 1:51:43
Loaded: 0.25%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:51:43
 
1x
    • Chapters
    • descriptions off, selected
    • captions off, selected
    • default, selected
    Search
    • 00:00:00
      2024.
    • Item 3 - TAC Update - Diana Coleman
      00:00:03
      And then under the other TAC update, we sent several items to
    • 00:00:07
      TAC for their consideration. They approved four of those items
    • 00:00:11
      and then NPRR1246 TAC approved, but the board remanded
    • 00:00:15
      NPRR1246, which is the ESR terminology alignment
    • 00:00:19
      for the single model era. ERCOT Legal noted that
    • 00:00:22
      there was some additional language cleanup due to the prior passage of
    • 00:00:27
      NPRR1188. So some of that same language TOUches NPRR1246.
    • 00:00:32
      And so ERCOT is going to take a look at that language and we'll
    • 00:00:36
      get that moving forward.
    • 00:00:39
      Any questions or thoughts on anything under the TAC update?
    • 00:00:47
      Okay, Troy, that leads us to
    • 00:00:50
      you and our project update for this month.
    • Item 4 - Project Update - Troy Anderson
      00:00:54
      Okay, thank you, Diana. Troy Anderson with
    • 00:00:57
      ERCOT Portfolio Management, if you can hold here on
    • 00:01:00
      the agenda for a second. Corey,
    • 00:01:03
      I have a pretty quick update. Nothing out of the ordinary
    • 00:01:07
      this month, but I just want to remind folks that there are some
    • 00:01:10
      things that you've requested to me that you'll be seeing first
    • 00:01:14
      quarter of next year. The FTE information. We got some
    • 00:01:18
      of that collected. We're analyzing that. As Diana mentioned,
    • 00:01:21
      we'll be talking about post RTC revision request prioritization,
    • 00:01:25
      some tweaks you asked for on the IA accuracy reporting
    • 00:01:29
      that hopefully will turn around a lot quicker in 25 than I delivered
    • 00:01:33
      in 24. And then also just a
    • 00:01:37
      point, ERCOT's 2026,
    • 00:01:39
      2027 budget is kind of in progress internally.
    • 00:01:43
      And so I've made sure that we have funding for the revision
    • 00:01:46
      request that we know will be after RTC go live.
    • 00:01:50
      So all of that we'll be talking about in 2025.
    • 00:01:54
      So on to the next slide. So recent go lives.
    • 00:02:02
      Get myself caught up. Okay, so in November 1231
    • 00:02:06
      for Firm Fuel, those tweaks went in on November
    • 00:02:10
      15th, December 1st we
    • 00:02:13
      discontinued the VDI relating to NPRR1217. So it's
    • 00:02:17
      XML only now. And I believe
    • 00:02:20
      we got the export functionality done for SCR799. I don't
    • 00:02:24
      know if I actually saw confirmation of that, but it was expected to be
    • 00:02:27
      done on 12/1. Then the 12/12
    • 00:02:32
      release, which I guess is today,
    • 00:02:36
      we got a number of things NPRR1183 actually got brought forward.
    • 00:02:40
      I was telling you it was going to be next March and now it's here
    • 00:02:44
      in December. So that's I think moving some reports
    • 00:02:47
      from Secure MIS secure to
    • 00:02:51
      ercot public. Also NPRR1184
    • 00:02:55
      relating to cash collateral goes live and
    • 00:02:58
      some related PGRRs PGRR108 you'll see there.
    • 00:03:02
      You're not going to see it on the next slide because I Ran out of
    • 00:03:04
      space but when I give you the final 2024
    • 00:03:08
      view next month I'll have PGRR108 on the next slide.
    • 00:03:13
      Then in January NPRR945 is targeted.
    • 00:03:17
      I was reporting a December target there but we
    • 00:03:20
      are needing to move that out by one month but we're confident we can
    • 00:03:24
      make that December release then there's also a PGRR plan
    • 00:03:28
      for January next
    • 00:03:31
      slide. So this is basically
    • 00:03:36
      the details of what I just discussed down in the Lower right corner NPRR1183
    • 00:03:40
      in red in December and NPRR945 moving
    • 00:03:44
      out next
    • 00:03:47
      slide. See the same activity
    • 00:03:50
      at NPRR945 and NPRR1183 so nothing
    • 00:03:54
      else has changed here.
    • 00:03:56
      RTC 12-05-2025
    • 00:04:04
      and my next slide. No changes on this one but
    • 00:04:09
      it is updated for all the expectations
    • 00:04:13
      with the RTC go live announcement
    • 00:04:21
      and Slide 7 NPRR1253 we requested
    • 00:04:24
      another month for the IA so expect
    • 00:04:28
      to have that for you the January PRS as
    • 00:04:32
      always these holiday months turning IAs
    • 00:04:35
      around in about a three to four week cycles
    • 00:04:39
      difficult within a normal scenario but
    • 00:04:42
      with holiday months it's even more challenging so we need a little
    • 00:04:46
      extra time to finish that and
    • 00:04:50
      last but not least, TWG has been meeting monthly they
    • 00:04:53
      met on the 21st of November and the next one
    • 00:04:57
      is the 19th of December with a lot of RTC
    • 00:05:00
      focus as you might imagine and then other things that are going on as
    • 00:05:04
      well from a technical perspective I can take
    • 00:05:08
      any questions Troy,
    • 00:05:16
      we have a question from Alex. Go ahead. Sorry.
    • 00:05:20
      Hey, this is Alex. I have a question
    • 00:05:24
      on. I know it was not a major project 2025
    • 00:05:29
      focusing on the but the NPRR1198
    • 00:05:33
      and NPRR258 had a 2025 priority.
    • 00:05:38
      It seemed like it was fairly minor. Is that something you think still
    • 00:05:41
      slip into mid-2025 I
    • 00:05:46
      believe. Let me check here
    • 00:05:51
      and I'm sorry, did you ask that question last month and did I fail to
    • 00:05:55
      get back to you? That might be the case. Sorry if that.
    • 00:05:58
      If that was the case.
    • 00:06:02
      Let's see.
    • 00:06:09
      Actually could I maybe bring an answer later in the
    • 00:06:12
      meeting? I can do some side investigation.
    • 00:06:16
      That would be fine. Thank you. Thank you,
    • 00:06:19
      thank you. We have
    • 00:06:23
      a clear cue. Okay,
    • 00:06:26
      thank you very much. Thank you Troy, we appreciate that.
    • Item 5 - Review PRS Reports, Impact Analyses, and Prioritization - Vote - denotes no impact - Diana Coleman
      00:06:32
      Okay, so under section 5 we have a handful
    • Item 5.4 - NPRR1253, Incorporate ESR Charging Load Information into ICCP
      00:06:35
      of impact analyses and prioritizations as
    • 00:06:39
      Troy mentioned just a minute ago NPRR1253 our
    • 00:06:44
      filed comments just indicating they need a little bit more time possibly
    • 00:06:48
      in January and requested PRS
    • 00:06:52
      to Table NPRR1253 so
    • 00:06:56
      we could put that on the ballot to
    • 00:07:00
      table Unless anybody has any questions or concerns. Okay.
    • 00:07:04
      All right, Corey, let's go ahead and put NPRR1253 on the comma ballot to.
    • 00:07:08
      I don't know if we need a time certain just to table it and then
    • Item 5.1 - NPRR1243, Revision to Requirements for Notice and Release of Protected Information or ECEII to Certain Governmental Authorities*
      00:07:10
      we'll just see what Troy comes up with in January. You got it. Okay.
    • Item 5.2 - NPRR1250, RPS Mandatory Program Termination*
      00:07:15
      And then NPRR1243, NPRR1250,
    • Item 5.3 - NPRR1252, Pre-notice for Sharing of Some Information, Addition of Research and Innovation Partner, Clarifying Notice Requirements*
      00:07:18
      NPRR1252 and
    • Item 5.5 - NPRR1258, TSP Performance Monitoring Update*
      00:07:22
      NPRR1258 all come to us from ERCOT with no cost associated with them. Does anybody have any
    • 00:07:26
      thoughts or comments or questions on these or would these all be good
    • 00:07:29
      for the combo ballot? Combo. All right,
    • 00:07:34
      we are going to get through this.
    • 00:07:40
      A few things going on today. Okay.
    • Item 6 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS - Possible Vote - Diana Coleman
      00:07:49
      All right, sorry. Just checking the queue. All right, so that takes
    • 00:07:53
      US to section 6 under
    • Item 6.04 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
      00:07:57
      NPRR1202. We had comments filed
    • 00:08:00
      by Engie expressing their support for this NPRR.
    • 00:08:05
      I believe this is still being discussed at WMS.
    • 00:08:10
      WMWG. I don't know if that one's ready
    • 00:08:14
      just so folks know that that conversation is still going.
    • Item 6.05 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk
      00:08:19
      NPRR1214. This was discussed at CMWG
    • 00:08:23
      earlier this month and was also discussed at WMS.
    • Item 6.06 - NPRR1226, Demand Response Monitor
      00:08:28
      So it looks like conversations are continuing on that. NPRR1226
    • 00:08:35
      ERCOT. I've been meeting with
    • 00:08:38
      Mark Patterson and Floyd on NPRR1226
    • 00:08:43
      and some optionality that we might be able to possibly roll NPRR1226
    • 00:08:48
      into another revision request. I know that
    • 00:08:51
      ERCOT will not have an attorney available to look at some comments
    • 00:08:55
      before today's meeting. So in the
    • 00:08:58
      January PRS meeting, we'll take a look at NPRR1226
    • 00:09:02
      and see if ERCOT's made any movement on
    • 00:09:07
      those efforts. Mark, are you on? Is there
    • 00:09:11
      anything that if you are on that that needs to be added that I may
    • 00:09:14
      have forgotten I
    • 00:09:18
      am on? Okay, well we appreciate it and
    • 00:09:21
      we'll just, we'll keep those conversations going and we'll see where we are in
    • 00:09:25
      January. Yeah, we just needed a little bit more time for legal to review the
    • 00:09:29
      comments before we follow them. So. Okay.
    • 00:09:32
      All right, thank you so much.
    • Item 6.08 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater
      00:09:38
      Okay, the next item under the table items
    • 00:09:42
      flagging for awareness is NPRR1234. It looks like PLWG will
    • 00:09:47
      discuss the related PGRR next week. And there's
    • 00:09:50
      still conversations at various working groups on NPRR1234.
    • Item 6.09 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service
      00:09:55
      NPRR1235. This one is still very much in conversation.
    • 00:09:59
      Just wanting to flag for awareness that the IMM filed comments and
    • 00:10:03
      at the end of November they
    • 00:10:06
      are not available Today they had a different meeting.
    • 00:10:09
      But just so folks know for those of us that are following NPRR1235
    • 00:10:13
      that the imm did file some comments. And so.
    • 00:10:18
      Thank you, Corey. And so some of their previous comments might have
    • 00:10:21
      some Compliance implications. And so they
    • 00:10:25
      are going to talk about this out
    • 00:10:30
      at the, at the January PRS meeting.
    • 00:10:35
      Bill, My comments
    • 00:10:39
      were actually on NPRR1202 and NPRR1234.
    • 00:10:42
      Okay, let's start with NPRR1202.
    • 00:10:47
      So and I think Angie filed comments
    • 00:10:52
      recently as well. There is quite a bit of support,
    • 00:10:55
      stakeholder Support for advancing NPRR1202.
    • 00:10:59
      ERCOT staff had some concerns and expressed a
    • 00:11:04
      desire to move 1NPRR234 forward, which we also
    • 00:11:08
      support. I suggested the idea of potentially moving
    • 00:11:13
      the fee concept from NPRR1202
    • 00:11:17
      Concepts. Initial fees for standalone and
    • 00:11:21
      co located large loads and also a kind of maintenance fee
    • 00:11:25
      in the interconnection queue. I suggested the idea of moving
    • 00:11:30
      that concept from NPRR1202 into NPRR1234 and advancing that entire package.
    • 00:11:34
      ERCOT Legal has
    • 00:11:38
      this is dog Doug Fawn. I don't want to speak for him but they have
    • 00:11:42
      convened internally and wanted to follow up and have a discussion with some of
    • 00:11:45
      the stakeholders that were interested in that concept next week.
    • 00:11:50
      So I would expect to participate in that discussion with potentially
    • 00:11:53
      like Bob Whitmire and some of the others involved might be Bob Helton as well
    • 00:11:57
      since they just filled comments. So I think both NPRR1202
    • 00:12:01
      and NPRR1234, we're still waiting to see the outcome
    • 00:12:04
      of that discussion whether we incorporate the fee concept in NPRR1202
    • 00:12:08
      into NPRR1234. Okay, great. Thank you.
    • 00:12:11
      Yep. Katie,
    • 00:12:15
      we see your note in the queue about NPRR1235
    • 00:12:19
      at the January SAWG. Thank you for that.
    • 00:12:25
      If I may, I think I was a little confused about what you were saying
    • 00:12:28
      was coming back to PRS considering that everything's still at
    • 00:12:31
      SAWG. No, what I
    • 00:12:35
      meant was that the IMM might want to speak to their comments
    • 00:12:39
      in the January PRS on NPRR1235
    • 00:12:46
      but they should bring those to SAWG since that's where the main discussion is,
    • 00:12:50
      right? Absolutely.
    • Item 6.11 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
      00:12:59
      Okay. And then the
    • 00:13:03
      next item, NPRR1241 WMWG reached
    • 00:13:07
      consensus this week they will report to WMS on
    • 00:13:11
      their endorsement with a 123 luminant comments. So we
    • 00:13:14
      might be able to see that in January NPRR1251.
    • 00:13:29
      I'm sorry guys.
    • Item 6.12 - NPRR1251, Updated FFSS Fuel Replacement Costs Recovery Process
      00:13:31
      NPRR1251 WMS unanimously endorsed this earlier
    • 00:13:35
      this month. This one may be ready. Wanted to see what
    • 00:13:39
      everybody's appetite was. This is coming
    • 00:13:42
      to us from ERCOT. This is making some improvements to the firm fuel
    • 00:13:46
      supply service, fuel cost recovery process.
    • 00:13:51
      This is tabled. We don't have to do anything with it today unless
    • 00:13:55
      folks think that this would be ready.
    • 00:13:58
      Did anybody have any thoughts on NPRR1251?
    • 00:14:04
      Katie, go ahead. Thanks Diana.
    • 00:14:08
      And wanted to thank Eno for his work on this and for
    • 00:14:11
      accepting that desktop edit in paragraph five.
    • 00:14:15
      So with that, I think it's okay to move forward.
    • 00:14:19
      Okay. If there is
    • 00:14:23
      no hesitation or no pause, we can add that one to
    • 00:14:26
      the combo ballot for NPRR1251. Okay. Corey will
    • 00:14:30
      add that one as well.
    • Item 6.13 - NPRR1255, Introduction of Mitigation of ESRs
      00:14:35
      All right, NPRR1255. I wanted to see if Caitlin is
    • 00:14:39
      on the phone. I know that she had asked to have this
    • 00:14:43
      item tabled. Caitlin, are you on the phone?
    • 00:14:48
      Go ahead. Caitlin, can you hear me? Diana, I can
    • 00:14:51
      hear you. Great. Go ahead. All right, so we had asked for this to
    • 00:14:55
      be tabled last month, and then December kind
    • 00:14:58
      of snuck up on us. So I'm hoping that we
    • 00:15:02
      can keep this tabled again this month. We have
    • 00:15:06
      been working with ERCOT offline. Those conversations
    • 00:15:10
      have been productive. And, you know, if they get to the
    • 00:15:13
      point where I need to file comments, then Jupiter would file comments.
    • 00:15:18
      In summary on this NPRR, it's the mitigation of ESRs.
    • 00:15:23
      We are comfortable with the mitigation. We are comfortable with the framework
    • 00:15:26
      laid out. We are exploring ways
    • 00:15:30
      to mitigate the situation where
    • 00:15:34
      you would be committed to ancillaries or something and be
    • 00:15:38
      preserving your state of charge for that. And then the mitigation
    • 00:15:42
      would make your offer go down such that you would be deployed when
    • 00:15:45
      you're not planning on that. And so a couple of the ideas we're exploring
    • 00:15:49
      with ERCOT are maybe some floor
    • 00:15:53
      on the mitigation to compensate for
    • 00:15:56
      your opportunity, cost of
    • 00:15:59
      having to recharge before your answer, service obligation,
    • 00:16:03
      or maybe thinking about if there's a state of
    • 00:16:07
      charge level at which it doesn't make sense to be mitigated.
    • 00:16:11
      So I envisioned that we'd come back,
    • 00:16:14
      Jupiter would come back in January with hopefully
    • 00:16:18
      real comments and then an update.
    • 00:16:23
      Okay, thank you, Caitlin. Any questions or
    • 00:16:26
      thoughts for Caitlin? Okay,
    • 00:16:30
      not seeing any. We don't have to do anything with this because it's already
    • 00:16:33
      tabled. So what we can do is we can just keep it as is,
    • 00:16:36
      and then in January we'll see where we are, and then if we need to
    • 00:16:40
      make any modifications, we can do so. And Corey's nodding his head
    • 00:16:43
      yes. So it's. Thankfully, we don't put time certains on our tabling to
    • 00:16:46
      allow that sort of flexibility. So it's great. And Corey's nodding his head and looks
    • 00:16:50
      really happy, you know, that you're doing something. Okay. For the moment.
    • Item 6.14 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs
      00:16:55
      Okay, thank you, Caitlin. The next item is NPRR1256.
    • 00:17:00
      Earlier this month, WMS requested us to continue to table this
    • 00:17:04
      item so WMWG could look at it this
    • 00:17:07
      last Week. WMWG did look at this and they will take
    • 00:17:11
      it up again in January. So those conversations are ongoing.
    • 00:17:15
      NPRR1257, this was approved
    • 00:17:20
      or recommended for approval as submitted, I believe. Let's see,
    • 00:17:24
      ROS was taking a look at this.
    • 00:17:27
      Christy, did you have a comment on this
    • 00:17:30
      particular one or one that we were talking about earlier? Nope.
    • 00:17:34
      NPRR1251. Okay, go ahead.
    • 00:17:38
      Just for clarification on that combo ballot item,
    • 00:17:42
      I'm assuming that it's as amended
    • 00:17:46
      by or as revised by WMS,
    • 00:17:49
      correct? Yes, we'll add that language. Thank you.
    • 00:17:53
      Thank you.
    • Item 6.15 - NPRR1257, Limit on Amount of RRS a Resource can Provide Using Primary Frequency Response
      00:17:58
      Okay, so back to NPRR1257.
    • 00:18:02
      Earlier this month, ROS unanimously approved this, so this
    • 00:18:05
      one may be ready. Wanted to see what anybody had.
    • 00:18:09
      Any thoughts? This might be another one for combo.
    • 00:18:12
      Okay, let's add NPRR1257. All right.
    • 00:18:18
      (item:6.16:NPRR1259, Update Section 15 Level Response Language)And then NPRR1259.
    • 00:18:21
      RMS unanimously endorsed this one as
    • 00:18:25
      well. Combo. All right,
    • 00:18:29
      Corey, I'll just note that the similar to NPRR1251 where
    • 00:18:34
      WMS had a language changed, RMS in their endorsement
    • 00:18:38
      squeezed in that it's a tax subcommittee
    • 00:18:42
      approved retail system outage. So the motion on the combo ballot would be to
    • 00:18:46
      Recommend Approval of NPRR1259 as amended by the December 10
    • 00:18:49
      RMS comments. Perfect. Thank you,
    • 00:18:53
      Corey. And then
    • 00:18:56
      I don't believe there's been any action on either system change request.
    • Item 6.17 - SCR826, ERCOT.com Enhancements
      00:18:59
      SCR826 or
    • Item 6.18 - SCR827, Grid Conditions Graph Addition for Operating Reserve Demand Curve - ORDC - Level
      00:19:05
      SCR827. Okay, so that takes us to
    • Item 7 - Review of Revision Request Language - Vote - Diana Coleman
      00:19:09
      new language. We have NPRR1260 that comes to
    • 00:19:12
      us from ERCOT. This is reinstating
    • 00:19:15
      some language that was inadvertently removed when NPRR863
    • 00:19:22
      was approved.
    • 00:19:28
      Mark, I don't. Marco, Corey, I don't know if anybody wants to raise this.
    • 00:19:31
      This didn't look substantive. It looked more language.
    • 00:19:37
      Yeah, I'll take a shot at Mark. And correct me if I get you off
    • 00:19:40
      the rails. If you think back to NPRR863 in all
    • 00:19:44
      of its glory, it started off by taking RRS
    • 00:19:47
      and splitting it into PFRS and RRS. Then via
    • 00:19:51
      comments, PFRS turned into FRS. Then via comments,
    • 00:19:54
      RRS turned into ECRs. Then via comments,
    • 00:19:58
      FRS turned back into RRS. So at the end
    • 00:20:01
      of the line, 863 had created ECRs
    • 00:20:05
      and attempted to retrain RRS.
    • 00:20:08
      But the exercise to retain RRS had to
    • 00:20:12
      be a brand new set of red lines because the existing RRS had
    • 00:20:15
      been turned into ECRs. So in the 180 plus pages of
    • 00:20:19
      863, as everyone was trying to add back in what should still
    • 00:20:23
      be RRS in the new world where ECRs exists,
    • 00:20:26
      these particular attributes for CLRs were not included
    • 00:20:30
      in that restored language. So nothing had been removed system wise for
    • 00:20:34
      what a CLR could or couldn't do. But the protocol language when the dust settled
    • 00:20:38
      on 863 should have had these red lines and did not.
    • 00:20:44
      Bill, go ahead. I would recommend we approve
    • 00:20:49
      this combo
    • 00:20:52
      ballot or we'll never speak of this again. Yeah,
    • 00:20:56
      impressive though, layout. Corey, I was just thinking about
    • 00:21:00
      that like the string with the map and it's like, well, gosh, I don't know
    • 00:21:03
      how we lost any language and all of that. I know
    • 00:21:06
      that because I needed to go back and do that digging when folks asked,
    • 00:21:09
      hey, I'm missing some CLR language. What happened with this? And it's like, well,
    • 00:21:12
      I'm glad you asked, sit down and stay awhile. And so I had to run
    • 00:21:15
      them through all of the 863 glory. So apologies that it
    • 00:21:18
      happened. I'm glad that the cleanup was only what, two sections
    • 00:21:22
      as opposed to 2,000 pages. So yes,
    • Item 7.1 - NPRR1260, Corrections for CLR Requirements Inadvertently Removed
      00:21:27
      okay. So on
    • 00:21:31
      NPRR1260, unless anybody has any thoughts or concerns,
    • 00:21:35
      we can add this one to the combo ballot as well. Okay.
    • Item 7.2 - NPRR1261, Operational Flexibility for CRR Auction Transaction Limits
      00:21:43
      NPRR1261 also comes to us from
    • 00:21:46
      ERCOT. This is removing references to the CRR
    • 00:21:50
      transaction limits that tag approves and and also
    • 00:21:53
      the CRR account holder transaction limits.
    • 00:21:57
      Did anybody from ERCOT want to tee this one up for
    • 00:22:01
      us?
    • 00:22:06
      Hi, this is Samantha Finley with ERCOT CRR
    • 00:22:09
      Market Operations Department.
    • 00:22:12
      So the purpose of this NPRR
    • 00:22:16
      is to provide more
    • 00:22:20
      flexibility to the market operator in
    • 00:22:24
      determining the overall transaction limits per
    • 00:22:29
      time of use transaction limits and per account
    • 00:22:32
      holder transaction limits. The time of use
    • 00:22:35
      transaction limits incidentally are only applicable
    • 00:22:39
      to the long term auctions at this time.
    • 00:22:44
      In using this new
    • 00:22:48
      per TOU transaction limit hasn't been in
    • 00:22:53
      place in the past. It's actually a new parameter
    • 00:22:57
      that came with SCR807 last year.
    • 00:23:02
      So the idea
    • 00:23:05
      here is that instead of having
    • 00:23:09
      a flat 400,000 transaction limit
    • 00:23:12
      for all auction types having
    • 00:23:18
      enabling us to have varying transient
    • 00:23:22
      transaction limits for the different auctions of
    • 00:23:26
      different capacity percentages.
    • 00:23:29
      So the what
    • 00:23:33
      this NPRR is saying is that with
    • 00:23:37
      every auction notice that is posted
    • 00:23:41
      before each CRR auction, ERCOT will include
    • 00:23:45
      a table of these three types of transaction limits
    • 00:23:50
      in the auction notices.
    • 00:23:52
      But we'll also be discussing
    • 00:23:56
      with CMWG before any changes
    • 00:24:00
      are made to the transaction limits.
    • 00:24:05
      But this will enable us to have different transaction
    • 00:24:09
      limits for different auction types. For example,
    • 00:24:14
      the long term auctions that auction off
    • 00:24:18
      more capacity of the network model,
    • 00:24:22
      we can allow more transactions than
    • 00:24:25
      say the sequence 6 auctions that only are auctioning
    • 00:24:29
      off 10% of the network capacity.
    • 00:24:33
      There would be A lower number of transactions available for
    • 00:24:37
      that auction type.
    • 00:24:43
      Thank you, Samantha. We have a question from Bill.
    • 00:24:48
      Hey, Samantha, I'm wondering. I mean, obviously we've been struggling with hitting
    • 00:24:53
      Transma. Trans CRR transaction volume limitations
    • 00:24:57
      in the auctions. I assume this is beneficial.
    • 00:25:01
      I'm just kind of curious how beneficial.
    • 00:25:05
      Does this solve all of our problems or gets us halfway?
    • 00:25:09
      Just kind of curious to how much benefit we get in terms of avoiding
    • 00:25:13
      the adjustment periods and all the other kind of
    • 00:25:17
      hoops we got to jump through to get the auctions to solve in a reasonable
    • 00:25:20
      time. Yeah,
    • 00:25:23
      well, just to give a little bit more
    • 00:25:27
      information, for example,
    • 00:25:31
      we have had for several years now the discretion
    • 00:25:35
      to allow more than 400,000 transactions
    • 00:25:41
      for auctions when we know that
    • 00:25:46
      the system can process that number of transactions.
    • 00:25:51
      And so, like I said,
    • 00:25:54
      we feel that. Well, we know from our
    • 00:25:59
      historical performance that the sequence
    • 00:26:02
      1, 2 and 3 auctions that are auctioning
    • 00:26:07
      off higher capacity percentages,
    • 00:26:10
      we can allow more than 400,000 transactions.
    • 00:26:15
      Being able to define transaction
    • 00:26:19
      limits per auction type is
    • 00:26:23
      going to give us more flexibility in allowing those additional transactions
    • 00:26:29
      where we can and limiting them
    • 00:26:35
      where we know that the CRR
    • 00:26:39
      system will not solve timely
    • 00:26:43
      for maintaining our CRR activity,
    • 00:26:48
      posting results, posting deadlines.
    • 00:27:00
      Bill, did that answer your question?
    • 00:27:05
      I was hoping Samantha would be more enthusiastic, but I
    • 00:27:11
      think this is clearly a positive change anyway, so I would
    • 00:27:14
      support moving it forward.
    • 00:27:16
      Okay, thank you. We've like beaten this issue up
    • 00:27:20
      ad nauseum. It's CMWG and WMS. I don't. I don't
    • 00:27:24
      see a reason why we need a table and refer. I think we can move
    • 00:27:27
      it today. Okay.
    • 00:27:31
      Alex? Yeah. Thanks, Bill, for timing.
    • 00:27:36
      I was just going to mention some of those issues that
    • 00:27:40
      were covered potential question and that we had
    • 00:27:43
      discussed this several times at CMWG and did review this in
    • 00:27:48
      ER at our last meeting and there was a lot of discussion.
    • 00:27:52
      The concerns were generally answered.
    • 00:27:55
      And CMWG has really appreciated some transparency and
    • 00:27:58
      bringing things to the room and that expectation that stakeholders
    • 00:28:03
      have heads up there and understanding what's happening at this change
    • 00:28:07
      and that this is reducing conservative
    • 00:28:10
      limit across all auctions and allowing. Allowing for
    • 00:28:13
      more appropriate limits and higher limits for the
    • 00:28:17
      auction series that fit was good
    • 00:28:21
      news. So I agree with the Bill that this seems
    • 00:28:25
      good to go.
    • 00:28:29
      Okay.
    • 00:28:32
      All right,
    • 00:28:35
      what is everybody's thoughts or what are everybody's thoughts on this one?
    • 00:28:39
      Is this one good for the compa ballot? Ready to move?
    • 00:28:42
      Okay, Corey,
    • 00:28:46
      let's add NPRR1261 please, to the combo
    • 00:28:49
      ballot.
    • 00:28:52
      Just note what we're talking about. NPRR1261. DC Energy filed a set of comments
    • 00:28:56
      as well in support of the concepts of NPRR1261
    • 00:29:00
      and asking encouraging ERCOT to continue the engagement
    • 00:29:04
      with CMWG, which Samantha referenced. So she kind of stole
    • 00:29:07
      their thunder. But I don't know if DC Energy wanted to tack on anything about
    • 00:29:11
      their comments.
    • 00:29:16
      Is anybody from DC Energy on the line?
    • 00:29:20
      Not seeing anybody. Okay.
    • 00:29:24
      But thank you for raising. That's good. I missed that one.
    • 00:29:27
      Thank you. Oh, yeah. Yes,
    • 00:29:30
      please, go ahead. Yeah, this is Mark Price
    • 00:29:34
      from DC Energy and no, not much more to add to that. We appreciate
    • 00:29:38
      the transparency that ERCOT has been providing to
    • 00:29:42
      the CMWG and we just wanted to memorialize our
    • 00:29:46
      request that we see that continued going forward. But yeah,
    • 00:29:50
      we're supportive.
    • 00:29:54
      Okay, great. Thank you so much.
    • 00:29:58
      Thanks, everyone.
    • Item 7.3 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification
      00:30:04
      Okay, so I'm going to pause on NPRR1262.
    • 00:30:08
      I know Clayton is wanting to
    • 00:30:12
      talk about this one and he's not available until 2. I don't know if
    • 00:30:16
      we're going to be here at 2, so we'll just give him a few more.
    • 00:30:24
      If we're done before too, then we can table it. But if he steers.
    • 00:30:29
      Okay, so let's put NPRR1262
    • 00:30:33
      on pause and we'll come back to that one. Corey.
    • 00:30:37
      Okay, thank you. Melissa, you had a question after
    • 00:30:41
      we finished NPRR1261? Yeah, thanks, Diana. Sorry to
    • 00:30:45
      make us go back. I wanted to get clarification. Is NPRR1251
    • 00:30:49
      on the combo? Yes, it is.
    • 00:30:52
      Okay, we just had a quick question on it. We thought it might be helpful
    • 00:30:56
      if we could sort of get a little bit of context as to why the
    • 00:30:59
      fuel oil index price is necessary.
    • 00:31:15
      Let me see if somebody is on from ERCOT that could.
    • 00:31:20
      Ino, are you on the line? Yes, I am. Can you hear me?
    • 00:31:24
      I can hear you. Great. Please go ahead.
    • 00:31:27
      I don't know what the question is. Melissa,
    • 00:31:30
      can you restate your question for Ino? Sure. You know, we were
    • 00:31:34
      just trying to, you know, understand why we needed the fuel index price.
    • 00:31:40
      Okay. So under this scenario,
    • 00:31:44
      you know, we can barely hear you. You were good a
    • 00:31:47
      second ago. I'm sorry.
    • 00:31:53
      See how this sound now?
    • 00:31:56
      Any better? A little better.
    • 00:32:00
      Go ahead and we'll see if we can keep it and
    • 00:32:04
      just use your big outside voice.
    • 00:32:10
      Can you hear me? That's great.
    • 00:32:14
      Can you hear me? We can hear you, Ino. Go ahead.
    • 00:32:19
      Can you hear us? So we have volume,
    • 00:32:23
      but only on one side.
    • 00:32:30
      Go ahead, Ino, if you can hear us.
    • 00:32:41
      Can anybody hear me? We can hear you,
    • 00:32:44
      Ino. Okay, there you go. Go ahead.
    • 00:32:48
      Okay, so basically this scenario
    • 00:32:52
      is when Resources utilize their existing
    • 00:32:57
      fuel inventories to basically
    • 00:33:00
      fill their tanks, if you will. If to supply the
    • 00:33:03
      service again immediately without having to purchase
    • 00:33:07
      additional fuel and the fuel
    • 00:33:11
      in the tank. The existing fuel in the tank might have been purchased
    • 00:33:15
      months in advance of the FFS deployment.
    • 00:33:19
      And we don't know how much they pay. So the maximum we're
    • 00:33:22
      willing to pay is basically the fuel oil index price
    • 00:33:27
      for fuel that was purchased before the
    • 00:33:31
      deployment. Resources can go and purchase fuel in the future
    • 00:33:35
      after if they are approved to repurchase the fuel, new fuel purchases
    • 00:33:39
      and then ERCOT will pay whatever the cost of fuel.
    • 00:33:43
      But if they utilize, if they don't want to replace the fuel, we will pay
    • 00:33:47
      for the fuel that was consumed through the. Through the FFS deployment
    • 00:33:51
      based on fab. That's the. That's basically the reason
    • 00:33:54
      we want to max. We don't want to pay more than the fuel oil price
    • 00:33:58
      because it's going to be very difficult for us to evaluate or verify
    • 00:34:01
      how much they pay for the fuel in the past as well.
    • 00:34:05
      Does that address your question?
    • 00:34:09
      Yeah, I think it does. So you're
    • 00:34:12
      saying. So even if their fuel price was lower, we don't think
    • 00:34:16
      there's a way to verify that. So I guess they
    • 00:34:19
      would just. There's always going to be an incentive to do the fuel
    • 00:34:24
      oil export. Right. It could have been lower
    • 00:34:27
      because maybe, you know, they made several purchases in
    • 00:34:31
      the past to buy fuel and it could
    • 00:34:34
      have been higher or lower than the fuel oil price.
    • 00:34:38
      And I'm talking about the fuel oil price at the time ERCOT made the approval
    • 00:34:42
      to restock the fuel.
    • 00:34:46
      Okay, I'm sorry,
    • 00:34:50
      all, but I'm. Well, okay. I think we're okay with it being on the
    • 00:34:53
      combo. Done. Thank you. You know. Sure.
    • 00:35:00
      Don Ross, go ahead. Yeah. You know, to what
    • 00:35:04
      you're saying, I understand why you would use the fuel index price in that situation.
    • 00:35:08
      But then I guess if you're using the fuel index price to estimate
    • 00:35:11
      it, why do you need the new fuel? Why do you need
    • 00:35:16
      subparagraph A. Because resource
    • 00:35:21
      entities can decide to replace the fuel
    • 00:35:26
      by purchasing new inventories, new fuel purchase, main new
    • 00:35:29
      fuel purchases or. So let
    • 00:35:32
      me give an example. You have a situation where a unit
    • 00:35:35
      gets deployed and they burn 100 gallons of fuel oil.
    • 00:35:40
      They had two choices. They can purchase,
    • 00:35:44
      replace that fuel with new purchases or
    • 00:35:49
      basically recover the cost of that fuel based
    • 00:35:52
      on the purchases they made in the past.
    • 00:35:55
      Right. But for purchases they made in
    • 00:35:59
      the past, we don't want to pay more than the fuel oil price.
    • 00:36:06
      Got it. So for all purchases made in the past, they'd use the fuel
    • 00:36:10
      oil index price and then for any new purchases going forward,
    • 00:36:13
      they would use the actual costs.
    • 00:36:18
      Exactly. Okay, thank you.
    • 00:36:24
      You're welcome. Katie, we see your text
    • 00:36:28
      in the chat as well.
    • 00:36:33
      Any other thoughts on NPRR1251? Just want to make sure
    • 00:36:36
      everybody's good.
    • 00:36:40
      Okay, good questions, guys.
    • Item 7.4 - SCR828, Increase the Number of Resource Certificates Permitted for an Email Domain in RIOO
      00:36:46
      Okay, let's go to System Change Request SCR828
    • 00:36:50
      comes to us from Nextera Energy. Kara, I see you on the
    • 00:36:54
      line. Did you want to tee this one up for the group, please?
    • 00:36:58
      Yeah, sure. Good afternoon. Can y'all hear me okay?
    • 00:37:02
      A little low, but we can hear you. Okay, I'll use my big
    • 00:37:06
      person voice. This is Kara Bethan with Next
    • 00:37:11
      item in the stakeholder process. We are requesting that the number of
    • 00:37:15
      resource certificates permitted for an email domain within the RIO
    • 00:37:18
      system be encrypted. Currently, in my understanding, there's a
    • 00:37:22
      limit of 23 certificates available to each email domain
    • 00:37:25
      associated with a certificate. This creates an incredible challenge
    • 00:37:29
      for larger marker participants with more than 23 generation
    • 00:37:32
      assets to submit resource updates timely into RIOO.
    • 00:37:36
      I've heard from our business management teams these updates can include weatherization
    • 00:37:40
      limits, plant verification reports,
    • 00:37:43
      and a host of other data that the
    • 00:37:46
      RIOO system tracks. So we would like to see if ERCOT
    • 00:37:50
      staff would be willing to update those reports certificates
    • 00:37:54
      per email domain to at least 50,
    • 00:37:57
      but would be would welcome the feedback from ERCOT staff
    • 00:38:00
      on any limitations to do so.
    • 00:38:06
      Thank you, Kara.
    • 00:38:12
      All right,
    • 00:38:16
      what are everybody's thoughts on the system change
    • 00:38:19
      request? So something we want to leave
    • 00:38:23
      here, have it reviewed somewhere else. What are you
    • 00:38:26
      all thinking?
    • 00:38:31
      Cara, this is Zach.
    • 00:38:34
      I actually think we need to increase that to more than 50.
    • 00:38:38
      I think we need to increase it to about 100 because if we increased it
    • 00:38:41
      to 50, we would still have the same issue.
    • 00:38:45
      I think we have about a total of 65 different assets.
    • 00:38:56
      Yeah, thanks, Zach. I think you kind of highlight the point that, you know,
    • 00:39:00
      it'd be good to hear from ERCOT if they had any system limitations.
    • 00:39:04
      We referenced in the SCR. At least 50 that I think in general Remarket
    • 00:39:08
      participates to update their systems.
    • 00:39:12
      RIOO in RIOO. It's. It's. We would like to
    • 00:39:15
      hear from ERCOT. What. What is the limitation on
    • 00:39:18
      the amount of certificates for an email? I think that's really the pressing
    • 00:39:22
      issue.
    • 00:39:26
      Okay, Bill, go ahead. We don't
    • 00:39:29
      have an IA on this yet, right? No, first time at prs. I mean,
    • 00:39:33
      I don't see why we would not want to
    • 00:39:37
      advance this to see what the cost is. That seems to make
    • 00:39:40
      sense as a market participant need for this. So I would be
    • 00:39:44
      in favor of approving it today. Coming back with
    • 00:39:47
      an ia okay. Seeing some head
    • 00:39:51
      nodding car. Zach, thank you for teeing that
    • 00:39:55
      up. All right.
    • 00:39:59
      I can't remember the last one we did this on, but there was, there's,
    • 00:40:02
      there's been a similar system one before where the request. There you go.
    • 00:40:06
      Where the request was at least X. And as part of the triage
    • 00:40:09
      process I'll put on my Troy hat that was part of the discussion with the
    • 00:40:13
      impacted system owners is what is it?
    • 00:40:16
      Is it 50, is it 100, is it a thousand? What is it? Before we
    • 00:40:19
      hit some sort of ceiling that either makes this systematically
    • 00:40:22
      impossible or makes something run for 70 years or that would
    • 00:40:25
      cost a million dollars, we will come back with some. What was the other one,
    • 00:40:29
      Roy?
    • 00:40:32
      SCR824, which was. What was that
    • 00:40:35
      was increased file size
    • 00:40:38
      and quantity limits for RIOO attachment where it was.
    • 00:40:42
      Come back and tell us what it is. We know there's a limit. We know
    • 00:40:44
      we don't like that limit. But let's not just ratchet it up to well,
    • 00:40:47
      we asked for five, I gave you five. It was what can you do logically,
    • 00:40:51
      200. And it's. So we'll, we'll come back with that information.
    • 00:40:55
      Thanks. And Corey, the only way to get the IE estimate is
    • 00:40:58
      to approve it as written.
    • 00:41:01
      Well, you guys can certainly modify it if you'd like.
    • 00:41:05
      If you'd like to say at least 500, you could,
    • 00:41:08
      but then that now has bound Troy and company to not come back with a
    • 00:41:11
      price tag for anything less than 500. So I think the language as it is
    • 00:41:15
      is fine. But SCRs are up for revision just
    • 00:41:18
      like NPRRS are if that's what PRs wanted to recommend approval of.
    • 00:41:22
      But I think the way this is crafted gives Troy &
    • 00:41:25
      Co. The power to come back with here's what it would,
    • 00:41:28
      here's what we can give you. And it would still be okay with
    • 00:41:32
      that SCR similar to what we did with a 24 where the initial request was
    • 00:41:35
      at least X and at least Y. And Troy & Co.
    • 00:41:39
      Came back with we're actually able to give you more than that because that's
    • 00:41:42
      the next logical ratchet up. Yeah.
    • 00:41:46
      Since Troy's here, I think the ask is clear.
    • 00:41:49
      I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to put anything else in there.
    • 00:41:53
      Go ahead, Troy. Yeah, if you recall, the 824
    • 00:41:57
      ended up being kind of awkward because I think in the course of testing
    • 00:42:00
      it, we essentially increase the pipeline Size
    • 00:42:04
      before it was approved or something. So there's a chance
    • 00:42:08
      that this one might be similar. It's just, you know,
    • 00:42:10
      parameters. But we see 50 here. We've heard
    • 00:42:14
      that more than 50 is probably desirable. So we
    • 00:42:17
      can kind of consider a couple of tiers and what
    • 00:42:21
      we put into the IA results. Okay.
    • 00:42:24
      And even after that IA, there's still opportunity for language modifications
    • 00:42:28
      if we see something so it's not just committed
    • 00:42:32
      to what we see on the screen. If in the course of working on that
    • 00:42:34
      IA, and we're coming back for language and IA,
    • 00:42:38
      there's still room, Ian Troy,
    • 00:42:43
      for one of the benchmarks, an entity
    • 00:42:46
      that has the most certificates for generation resources should be looked
    • 00:42:50
      at to see if what that would be as a benchmark number
    • 00:42:54
      and then maybe 10% above that or something like that for. For the companies that
    • 00:42:58
      do this as a service. Thank you.
    • 00:43:02
      Thanks, Ann. Cara.
    • 00:43:06
      Yeah, it's Kara again with Nextera. All of this conversation sounds
    • 00:43:10
      great. So I'll just keep watching this and if we need to amend anything from
    • 00:43:14
      the original writing in the SCR, happy to do so. But thanks again,
    • 00:43:18
      our staff for looking into this. It's greatly appreciated.
    • 00:43:25
      Okay, so we will add system change
    • 00:43:29
      request SCR828 to the combo ballot.
    • 00:43:33
      And I am not seeing Clayton, even though
    • 00:43:37
      we are a little early. So we can go
    • 00:43:41
      back to. What is that, 262 and
    • 00:43:45
      we can table that and wait for January.
    • 00:43:49
      We can let him tee that up when he's available
    • 00:43:52
      next. Next month if that sounds good to everybody.
    • 00:43:56
      Unless anybody do
    • 00:44:01
      I want. Okay.
    • 00:44:05
      Okay, let's. Yeah. Oh, yeah, let's do that.
    • 00:44:09
      That's true. Okay, good point. All right.
    • 00:44:14
      We could talk about ERS or anything else
    • 00:44:18
      that he would definitely support.
    • 00:44:22
      Okay, let's just keep moving then. Section 8.
    • Item 8 - Notice of Withdrawal - Diana Coleman
      00:44:26
      We don't have to do anything with these. I don't believe, but these are just
    • Item 6.03 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs
      00:44:29
      formal notifications that both NPRR1200
    • Item 8.1 - NPRR1242, Related to VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
      00:44:33
      and NPRR1242 are being withdrawn.
    • 00:44:36
      Corey, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a formal notification.
    • 00:44:39
      PRS doesn't have to vote on any for those two items today.
    • 00:44:42
      You've got it. PRs never recommended approval of either of those, so the sponsors
    • 00:44:46
      are free to withdraw at any time. And this is just your heads up that
    • 00:44:49
      I didn't accidentally delete them from the sea of tabled items. They were intentionally
    • 00:44:53
      removed for that. Doing something sneaky. Okay,
    • 00:44:57
      Melissa, I see you in the queue.
    • 00:45:00
      Yep. Hey, sorry again. I. After thinking more
    • 00:45:03
      on NPRR1251, I think I'd like to abstain. So I. I Apologize
    • 00:45:07
      for making us have a vote, but maybe it gets Clayton into the meeting in
    • 00:45:10
      time. Okay.
    • 00:45:14
      All right, so let's bring up NPRR1251 and we'll do an individual vote
    • 00:45:18
      vote on that one. Give Corey just a
    • 00:45:21
      few seconds.
    • 00:45:36
      Motion. Okay, so we're going to need a motion and
    • 00:45:40
      A second for NPRR1251 to recommend
    • 00:45:43
      approval of NPRR1251 is amended by the December 5,
    • 00:45:48
      2024 WMS. Comments? Do we have a motion
    • 00:45:52
      and a second? Not everybody
    • 00:45:55
      at once.
    • 00:46:00
      Okay, if we don't have anything, we may.
    • 00:46:18
      Okay, if we don't, the chair and the vice chair can make motions.
    • 00:46:23
      Okay, we have a motion by Andy. Do we have a second?
    • 00:46:29
      Okay. Come on, Bill.
    • 00:46:33
      Second by Bill. With a star at the end. So we
    • 00:46:37
      have a motion by Andy and a second by Bill Barnes.
    • 00:46:42
      Thank you gentlemen for your service. We will start up with
    • 00:46:46
      consumers. Quick check at the
    • 00:46:50
      queue to see if anyone's joined us. Believe we've
    • 00:46:53
      got an Eric Goff. So we'll start with Melissa.
    • 00:46:56
      Abstain. Sure.
    • 00:47:01
      Thank you. Move on to our CO ops. Lucas?
    • 00:47:05
      Yes, thank you.
    • 00:47:10
      Sure, we've got an Eric Blakey yet.
    • 00:47:16
      Eric. Let's move on to our generators. Andy?
    • 00:47:19
      Yes, thank you. Alex?
    • 00:47:22
      Yes, thank you.
    • 00:47:25
      Caitlin? Yes,
    • 00:47:28
      thank you. David?
    • 00:47:32
      Yes, thank you. Thank you to
    • 00:47:35
      our IPMS. John?
    • 00:47:39
      Yes, thanks, sir. On to our IREPs.
    • 00:47:42
      Bill.
    • 00:47:45
      Very weak. Yes, Gotcha. Still counts.
    • 00:47:49
      Thank you, sir. Aaron.
    • 00:47:54
      Seeing Aaron move
    • 00:48:00
      on to our IOUs. Martha? Yes, thank you.
    • 00:48:03
      Jim? Yes, thanks. Gordon. Thank you. On to the munies.
    • 00:48:06
      Diana? Yes, thank you.
    • 00:48:09
      Ashley.
    • 00:48:13
      Ashley and Fei.
    • 00:48:18
      Yes, thank you. Thank you. Motion carries.
    • 00:48:22
      One extension. Thank you all.
    • 00:48:25
      Okay, thanks everybody. Thanks, Corey.
    • Item 9 - Other Business - Diana Coleman
      00:48:30
      Okay, let's go to other business.
    • 00:48:34
      I know that ERCOT, Amy Lofton and others have been working
    • 00:48:38
      on an update for, for the ERCOT dashboard roadmap.
    • 00:48:42
      We had an initial presentation by ERCOT at our September 12th
    • 00:48:47
      meeting and we. I went back and
    • 00:48:51
      I looked at the presentation from September
    • 00:48:54
      compared to what Amy's going to present to us today and
    • 00:48:58
      also capture some questions that we had for them and just making
    • 00:49:01
      sure that we are happy
    • 00:49:06
      with or not happy, but we understand the direction that
    • 00:49:09
      ERCOT is going on this and making sure that everybody understands what the process
    • 00:49:13
      is and what ERCOT is looking to do moving forward.
    • 00:49:16
      So Amy without let you take it away. Thanks,
    • Item 9.1 - ERCOT Dashboard Roadmap - Amy Lofton
      00:49:19
      Diana. So we have been working since September
    • 00:49:23
      to come up with a roadmap first of all
    • 00:49:27
      for our dashboards just to make sure that we
    • 00:49:30
      are capturing what has been recommended
    • 00:49:34
      both from MP and Insight ERCOT and
    • 00:49:39
      we've met with our risk
    • 00:49:43
      and strategy team to create this roadmap,
    • 00:49:46
      and they are the group that does the roadmapping
    • 00:49:50
      process at ERCOT. So while working with them,
    • 00:49:54
      this is a process that we came up with and just as a result reminder,
    • 00:49:59
      the process will be implemented in 2025.
    • 00:50:04
      So a couple of the things we'll go through is defining
    • 00:50:08
      that process of introducing new dashboards
    • 00:50:11
      and any changes to existing dashboards,
    • 00:50:15
      and then what is going to be the communications around that.
    • 00:50:20
      So this should look very familiar. This is what I brought to
    • 00:50:23
      should be similar to what you're used to
    • 00:50:27
      should be similar to what you're used to
    • 00:50:31
      with the revision request, such as suggesting
    • 00:50:36
      the request and I'll walk through in just
    • 00:50:39
      a moment how that is submitted to
    • 00:50:42
      ERCOT and then in
    • 00:50:47
      that request. And we don't have that
    • 00:50:51
      set up yet, but we will be working on that to implement it next
    • 00:50:54
      year. From that submission,
    • 00:50:58
      whether it comes from a group or from
    • 00:51:02
      an individual, it will be set into a
    • 00:51:06
      backlog to be considered. So ERCOT will consider
    • 00:51:09
      it and I'll go over a couple of those considerations that we
    • 00:51:14
      run through in that process. So, again,
    • 00:51:18
      once it's considered, whether it's rejected or
    • 00:51:22
      if it's approved, we can go through the impact
    • 00:51:26
      analysis portion, which is part of our project
    • 00:51:29
      procedure at ERCOT, and then finally,
    • 00:51:33
      we will treat it as a
    • 00:51:37
      project, whether it's an actual project funded
    • 00:51:41
      by the PMO or
    • 00:51:45
      whether it's what we call O&M ERCOT.
    • 00:51:49
      So once we realize what the costs are and then prioritize
    • 00:51:54
      it with other ongoing things
    • 00:51:58
      that are happening at ERCOT, then we can move
    • 00:52:02
      over to the schedules, the implementation
    • 00:52:06
      of the dashboard or display changes.
    • 00:52:11
      So some of the things that we
    • 00:52:15
      do, we do consider
    • 00:52:18
      as part of this is listed here.
    • 00:52:22
      There will be a form, as I said, we're thinking
    • 00:52:25
      it will be with our ServiceNow tool, but I don't want to
    • 00:52:28
      say that is 100% accurate right now.
    • 00:52:33
      But since there is already a public portal, this would
    • 00:52:36
      be a good fit with how anyone can
    • 00:52:40
      come in here and create those requests.
    • 00:52:45
      So some of the things we have to consider when we're looking at
    • 00:52:50
      changes to dashboards and some of the other systems
    • 00:52:54
      is, does it provide a broad value to
    • 00:52:58
      ERCOT stakeholders? And after that,
    • 00:53:02
      is it. What is the level of effort?
    • 00:53:06
      And in that level of effort,
    • 00:53:09
      we have to consider things like, does that data already exist
    • 00:53:13
      to build out that dashboard, or is it something that we're going to have to
    • 00:53:17
      go back and build in
    • 00:53:21
      the queries and try to find that data
    • 00:53:25
      some other way to. To make it available.
    • 00:53:30
      And then of course it has to be public data that we're
    • 00:53:34
      talking about. So if there's any confidential or secure
    • 00:53:38
      data, then that right there would not
    • 00:53:43
      be part of the requirements of making it public. On ERCOT.com
    • 00:53:49
      the other thing we would need to consider is, is this
    • 00:53:52
      a duplicate effort or can you find
    • 00:53:56
      that information in another form? One of the
    • 00:53:59
      examples would be, if there's already a report that has
    • 00:54:04
      this data in it, would that
    • 00:54:08
      suffice for what the request is being asked?
    • 00:54:14
      The other thing is, is this a long term process? So is this something
    • 00:54:18
      that this time next year, if we build out this
    • 00:54:22
      dashboard, is it going to still be available?
    • 00:54:26
      If it's something that's going to be going away, we obviously don't want
    • 00:54:29
      to put all this effort into a project
    • 00:54:33
      that would not be in effect in
    • 00:54:37
      the future. And then the last thing here as an example,
    • 00:54:41
      and this is not a complete list, but just
    • 00:54:44
      another example is again, is this something
    • 00:54:48
      that is available in some other kind of format?
    • 00:54:53
      So I'll pause there and see if we have any questions
    • 00:54:57
      before I go on. We have
    • 00:55:00
      a cleric. Okay.
    • 00:55:04
      So part of the impact analysis and
    • 00:55:07
      the project review, prioritization as
    • 00:55:12
      part of the ERCOT process, we do have
    • 00:55:16
      to look at things like the cost, is there existing hardware
    • 00:55:20
      and software that we have that would support this,
    • 00:55:23
      or is this something that's going to have to be purchased and
    • 00:55:27
      then hours per department?
    • 00:55:30
      So we're constantly working on multiple
    • 00:55:34
      projects at any given day
    • 00:55:38
      and we have to make sure that those departments have
    • 00:55:41
      the bandwidth to help us, whether it's getting the
    • 00:55:44
      data or designing that data
    • 00:55:48
      into a dashboard or actually
    • 00:55:52
      putting it out onto the website? And then
    • 00:55:56
      another review is the budget.
    • 00:55:59
      So does ERCOT have the funding to put this
    • 00:56:03
      into the queue, to build it out and
    • 00:56:07
      then the priority of it, and then also
    • 00:56:13
      are other projects that are ongoing, are they
    • 00:56:16
      going to be kind of higher priority than
    • 00:56:20
      we have the schedule
    • 00:56:24
      status? So here and again
    • 00:56:28
      I was asked to come back with a solution that involved communication.
    • 00:56:32
      And we do want to be transparent and let everyone know
    • 00:56:36
      where their requests are in that queue.
    • 00:56:39
      And we will build out that public
    • 00:56:44
      display to show everyone what has been asked and
    • 00:56:50
      also what the decisions were and why those
    • 00:56:54
      decisions were made. So it's not something that's going to be
    • 00:56:57
      going into this form and then kind of lost to everyone.
    • 00:57:01
      You will be have the ability to go in
    • 00:57:05
      and look at that. And that does include
    • 00:57:09
      all of the requests that we have in the backlog.
    • 00:57:13
      And then the last thing Here is of course, in the backlog.
    • 00:57:17
      We do have to prioritize and you will
    • 00:57:21
      be able to see again if that
    • 00:57:24
      suggestion, what you're suggesting has already been suggested in here.
    • 00:57:28
      We'll just combine those two, ask together
    • 00:57:32
      and that will go into that consideration.
    • 00:57:36
      Amy? Yes. We have one question. Do you want to
    • 00:57:40
      take that now or do you want to. Because you're almost done. I can do
    • 00:57:43
      it now. Yes, Bill, go ahead.
    • 00:57:50
      This is for request to change the. The dashboards
    • 00:57:53
      that are viewable on the ERCOT website.
    • 00:57:56
      Correct. This seems to imply that there could
    • 00:58:00
      potentially be a lot of changes to the dashboards and I hope
    • 00:58:03
      that's not the case. I think there could be some suggestions to create
    • 00:58:07
      new ones. But to have such a formal
    • 00:58:10
      process that would allow for
    • 00:58:14
      constant changing of what we see is little
    • 00:58:18
      concerning. And I'm just looking at your. The process.
    • 00:58:24
      Do these ever come back to like this group to take
    • 00:58:28
      a look at and talk about whether that makes sense or not?
    • 00:58:31
      It looks like it's all within kind of closed doors at ERCOT and whether
    • 00:58:34
      you determined to do it or not.
    • 00:58:37
      So there were a couple of questions in there. So I
    • 00:58:41
      think the main thing there is it
    • 00:58:44
      will be transparent for everyone to see. The second
    • 00:58:48
      is we will be working
    • 00:58:51
      with the technology working group,
    • 00:58:55
      not particularly with PRs. Not that's
    • 00:58:59
      not to say we can't come back and report certain things to this
    • 00:59:03
      group, but we do plan to work with the technology
    • 00:59:06
      working group because that kind of goes more in
    • 00:59:10
      line with this. And then your other question,
    • 00:59:16
      I was asked to create this process because
    • 00:59:19
      there was some feedback and
    • 00:59:23
      it was going into things like the SCR is the system request,
    • 00:59:27
      change request, and also
    • 00:59:30
      into the NPRR process. And since these are not required
    • 00:59:35
      postings, that's why we created this
    • 00:59:39
      process. Those are
    • 00:59:43
      voted on by stakeholders, though. It's not clear that this is correct
    • 00:59:47
      and we don't anticipate it to be voted
    • 00:59:51
      on. We just want to create that process.
    • 00:59:55
      If you have feedback, if you have suggestions for more
    • 00:59:59
      dashboards or changes to existing ones, there's a forum
    • 01:00:03
      for you to do that. Okay, so I'm just using
    • 01:00:06
      bad example. Ian submits a request
    • 01:00:10
      to create a dashboard to display NRG's data
    • 01:00:13
      for our power plants. I would not like that
    • 01:00:18
      and Ian would like that. How would we resolve that
    • 01:00:23
      in this process you're proposing? Well, it goes back
    • 01:00:27
      to this here and one of those is,
    • 01:00:30
      does it provide a broad value to ERCOT
    • 01:00:34
      stakeholders? And I would say no, because that was, that's very
    • 01:00:38
      segregated. But who Makes that call. Is that just ERCOT's discretion?
    • 01:00:41
      It's part of the ERCOT process, yes. So if we go back
    • 01:00:45
      over here to this consideration and
    • 01:00:49
      looking at the impact of it and
    • 01:00:53
      what all data is in there, well, then I'll submit
    • 01:00:56
      one to Morgan Stanley, expose their trades, then we can go
    • 01:01:00
      back and forth. Okay.
    • 01:01:03
      I'm a little nervous about how much stakeholder involvement
    • 01:01:07
      is in this process, but okay.
    • 01:01:11
      Thanks, Martha.
    • 01:01:15
      Thank you for the update, Amy. I guess I was just wondering what the
    • 01:01:19
      two SCR826 and SCR827 that have been table for
    • 01:01:22
      some time, are you expecting that ERCOT
    • 01:01:26
      will suggest that those requests need to be
    • 01:01:30
      pursued through this process rather than through an SCR?
    • 01:01:33
      Correct, yes. Okay. Because the SCR is that
    • 01:01:37
      process, we don't want this data
    • 01:01:42
      flowing through because it's not required to be
    • 01:01:46
      posted. Okay, thank you,
    • 01:01:50
      Caitlin.
    • 01:01:53
      Thanks. Can you can hear me still? You sound
    • 01:01:57
      great. So,
    • 01:02:00
      following on, Bill thought I think I
    • 01:02:03
      would prefer this to be a
    • 01:02:07
      revision request so that we could have stakeholder input. But I think what I'm
    • 01:02:11
      hearing being said that the logic is
    • 01:02:14
      because. Because none of these dashboard displays are
    • 01:02:18
      required, they're not in protocols
    • 01:02:23
      or anything, so thus we can't put an
    • 01:02:26
      approval process for them into protocol.
    • 01:02:31
      Yes, that is correct. Yes. Okay. And so
    • 01:02:36
      ERCOT's position is in order for us to
    • 01:02:40
      have a stakeholder process to make changes to the display,
    • 01:02:44
      we'd first have to put, you know, every display
    • 01:02:48
      and dashboard we want required into the protocol.
    • 01:02:55
      Yes, that is correct as well. Okay. But that,
    • 01:02:58
      that could be done.
    • 01:03:08
      It's something that we don't want done because
    • 01:03:14
      just historically these have been
    • 01:03:20
      as it's not required
    • 01:03:23
      information that we put out there. And we do have a lot
    • 01:03:26
      of reports that support several of these
    • 01:03:30
      dashboards, but that's just in another format.
    • 01:03:36
      Okay. I think it's worth thinking about if there's
    • 01:03:39
      a way for us to require that
    • 01:03:43
      changes go through a stakeholder process, even somehow
    • 01:03:46
      without spelling everything required out. It seems to me
    • 01:03:50
      like there should be a way to do that. I think there was
    • 01:03:54
      previously, so I think that's worth thinking about.
    • 01:03:59
      There hasn't been for the dashboards and displays.
    • 01:04:04
      Okay.
    • 01:04:07
      Okay. I think, I just think it's worth
    • 01:04:10
      thinking about if there's a way to put that into a stakeholder process.
    • 01:04:15
      That's the end of my comments, Diana. Thank you, Caitlin.
    • 01:04:19
      Ian, thank you. Few things.
    • 01:04:22
      So historically, changes to the website were done through these
    • 01:04:25
      processes. It wasn't until uri, when ERCOT
    • 01:04:29
      revamped the website, and then decided that the
    • 01:04:32
      ERCOT website belonged to ERCOT, that stakeholders were
    • 01:04:36
      no longer allowed to make changes through revision requests.
    • 01:04:41
      What I would recommend here to satisfy
    • 01:04:44
      Bill's concerns is entering in a new three
    • 01:04:48
      and having three become four, et cetera, to where stakeholders can
    • 01:04:52
      make comments of if they
    • 01:04:56
      support or if they have concerns with such a thing,
    • 01:05:00
      which would then keep it out of the stakeholder
    • 01:05:03
      approval process, which is really what ERCOT's desire is.
    • 01:05:07
      But allow stakeholders to give feedback and
    • 01:05:10
      to say, hey, my trade information is
    • 01:05:14
      mine, you shouldn't be doing it, or hey, that's a really good idea,
    • 01:05:17
      ERCOT, we also support this. So I
    • 01:05:20
      think that's the way to get the stakeholder feedback you're looking for,
    • 01:05:24
      yet still keep it entirely ERCOT's purview and ERCOT's
    • 01:05:27
      decision. So, Ian, are you saying to
    • 01:05:31
      come back to certain groups for that or.
    • 01:05:34
      It doesn't have to be groups. Doesn't have to. It could just be a posting,
    • 01:05:37
      it could be whatever ERCOT wishes it to be.
    • 01:05:40
      Groups, I think would give your legal team
    • 01:05:44
      a little pause because then your bring it back into stakeholder purview.
    • 01:05:48
      I would think it'd be more a posting or an email
    • 01:05:51
      exploder list that it goes out on and with a
    • 01:05:54
      deadline to say you must provide comments by such and such state
    • 01:05:58
      like rmrs do. All right,
    • 01:06:01
      and just a slight correction there,
    • 01:06:06
      the ERCOT website was expanded after
    • 01:06:10
      uri. I wouldn't say that we took it away from. From the stakeholders,
    • 01:06:13
      we just had to broaden our audience.
    • 01:06:17
      Correct. I'm sorry, I meant that changes were no longer in the purview
    • 01:06:21
      of stakeholders to the website.
    • 01:06:28
      Phil, similar suggestion
    • 01:06:33
      that Ian just made and I
    • 01:06:36
      understand the desire to not have this turn into like a formal NPRR
    • 01:06:41
      SCR process, but I think you could definitely tweak this to
    • 01:06:44
      address the concerns, which would be kind of like Ian said, like in
    • 01:06:48
      number three, before ERCOT makes a final determination
    • 01:06:52
      on yes, this is good or not, is maybe bring
    • 01:06:56
      to PRS a list of all the requests in ERCOT's
    • 01:07:00
      recommendation. ERCOT thinks this is good because of this and
    • 01:07:04
      we plan to move forward unless there's objections. You know,
    • 01:07:08
      not to create more work for prs, but I really don't think there's going to
    • 01:07:11
      be a lot of these. I hope not.
    • 01:07:15
      And that would give stakeholders an opportunity to one understand.
    • 01:07:18
      Maybe you could lay out this is what the dashboard request
    • 01:07:22
      is asking for. Here's the information it impacts ERCOT
    • 01:07:26
      is recommending we do it because it's not time consuming on
    • 01:07:29
      resources and it provides more transparency for the particular thing
    • 01:07:35
      then that way we have a chance to at least participate before you
    • 01:07:38
      move forward for something that could inadvertently harm a participant or
    • 01:07:42
      a segment. That's a thought. Thanks.
    • 01:07:47
      Thanks, Phil. Roy. True.
    • 01:07:52
      Yeah, I support what Bill
    • 01:07:55
      was just saying. I think between number
    • 01:07:59
      two and number three, maybe there should be an opportunity for
    • 01:08:04
      market participants to provide some written
    • 01:08:09
      comments regarding proposals for
    • 01:08:13
      the dashboard display.
    • 01:08:18
      Like I said, head of number three, so that you know,
    • 01:08:21
      if you go past three before you start adding things in, the decision's
    • 01:08:25
      already been made. So. Thank you.
    • 01:08:29
      Thank you, Mark Smith.
    • 01:08:32
      Yeah, I, Bill said
    • 01:08:36
      pretty much what I the gist of what I was going to say and so
    • 01:08:40
      I would just express my total agreement
    • 01:08:44
      with him on in terms of the need for stakeholders at some point to
    • 01:08:47
      be able to have more of a voice
    • 01:08:52
      on these issues.
    • 01:08:56
      Okay, thank you, Mark.
    • 01:08:59
      So we have a clear queue and I
    • 01:09:03
      have a couple of questions myself. So on
    • 01:09:06
      this process flow, how does the impact
    • 01:09:10
      analysis review work if it doesn't go through the stakeholder process?
    • 01:09:14
      Is that a review, an approval of dollars,
    • 01:09:19
      aside from market participant input
    • 01:09:24
      and feedback? Correct. It's part of the internal
    • 01:09:28
      process that ERCOT where we look at
    • 01:09:32
      different activities, whether it be a
    • 01:09:35
      funded project or what we call om,
    • 01:09:39
      which is daily operational and maintenance of
    • 01:09:42
      systems. And as part
    • 01:09:46
      of that process, that's where it comes from. It's not
    • 01:09:50
      something that we come back to any of the stakeholders and
    • 01:09:54
      evaluate with them. It's more of an executive level.
    • 01:09:58
      So we have processes where we go to
    • 01:10:03
      a technical foundation and talk to the
    • 01:10:06
      IT leadership and then we eventually go
    • 01:10:10
      to the portfolio review where the
    • 01:10:14
      executives vote on, yes, we can provide
    • 01:10:17
      dollars for this or we have to table
    • 01:10:21
      it or you know, it's lower priority so we can get to it in two
    • 01:10:25
      or three years. Okay,
    • 01:10:27
      Troy, I can just add to what Amy's saying.
    • 01:10:31
      For any proposed project, NPRR or anything,
    • 01:10:35
      we do the same type of impact analysis process.
    • 01:10:38
      So to the degree something's internal,
    • 01:10:41
      it has an IA just like the IAs you see here.
    • 01:10:45
      Okay,
    • 01:10:49
      Roy, go ahead.
    • 01:10:52
      Yeah, I was just going to ask. It sounds like there
    • 01:10:57
      should be somewhere on the ERCOT website where you're going to be
    • 01:11:01
      posting how this is going to work and
    • 01:11:04
      the documents that you need to utilize to put in a
    • 01:11:08
      request. So are you planning to
    • 01:11:12
      set aside some place to put all of these,
    • 01:11:15
      whether they get approved or rejected and you
    • 01:11:18
      know, some sort of database that people can refer
    • 01:11:22
      to? Is that what you're expecting to do?
    • 01:11:25
      Yes. Correct. So on slide four,
    • 01:11:29
      what I was referring to here is we will find
    • 01:11:33
      a place, whether it's on ERCOT.com or one of
    • 01:11:37
      our portals that work off of ServiceNow that
    • 01:11:41
      will be available. And we can also link from ERCOT.com
    • 01:11:45
      to wherever this collection
    • 01:11:49
      of the feedback is.
    • 01:11:55
      Okay, so you're going to include all the instructions and everything
    • 01:11:59
      about, you know, how to do this and
    • 01:12:03
      what the process is, then that's all going to be spelled
    • 01:12:06
      out somewhere on. Yes, wherever we access it.
    • 01:12:10
      Okay. Yes. Thank you. Hey,
    • 01:12:14
      thanks, Amy. Andy here definitely agree with what
    • 01:12:18
      Bill said in terms of more call it market
    • 01:12:22
      transparency or just a procedurally. Right. Like having a public forum to
    • 01:12:25
      have the discussions and building on what Roy just
    • 01:12:29
      said, that's going to save ERCOT some time too, because if
    • 01:12:33
      it's decided that we reject an idea or a request
    • 01:12:36
      for a dashboard change, what you don't want to have is multiple redundant requests
    • 01:12:41
      having that forum where we can at least see, hey, this request was already made,
    • 01:12:45
      here's why it was rejected. Stakeholders talked about it. This isn't something
    • 01:12:49
      we need. You know, these are the kind of things we're thinking about trying
    • 01:12:52
      to marry or get
    • 01:12:56
      the procedure that you laid out in
    • 01:13:00
      having stakeholder feedback involved.
    • 01:13:03
      And then my second question or point I wanted to make was
    • 01:13:07
      on the IA approval process,
    • 01:13:11
      is there a threshold limitation on the
    • 01:13:15
      dashboard process that's being proposed? For example, if something was a million
    • 01:13:18
      dollars, if it was within the budget, ERCOT is making that
    • 01:13:22
      decision, or like, what's the process look
    • 01:13:26
      like for approval homes? I can,
    • 01:13:29
      I can take that one, Amy, To a
    • 01:13:33
      degree, it's based on how we perceive the priority
    • 01:13:37
      of the item to be. So if there's a million dollar
    • 01:13:41
      dashboard change that we think is more
    • 01:13:45
      important than 12 other things on
    • 01:13:48
      our list, then we'll find a way to fund it.
    • 01:13:52
      Hopefully most of these things aren't huge dollar things and so they
    • 01:13:56
      kind of fit into the budget without you creating too much of a splash.
    • 01:14:01
      Yeah, appreciate the insight, Troy, with what
    • 01:14:05
      Bill and Roy were saying on that if you go back to the go up
    • 01:14:08
      one slide, Amy, that's where
    • 01:14:12
      adding not only adding stakeholder feedback in number three,
    • 01:14:15
      but also number four would be beneficial. So some of that triaging
    • 01:14:20
      and weighing the benefits relative to the budget and what's
    • 01:14:23
      available could be beneficial for ERCOT to hear from stakeholders.
    • 01:14:31
      And I guess I'll just add, I know that we're
    • 01:14:35
      trying to implement a completely separate process for
    • 01:14:39
      the dashboards and the displays, but the thing that I keep hearing
    • 01:14:43
      and that I understand. And support is that we need stakeholder
    • 01:14:47
      transparency. It would be helpful to know,
    • 01:14:50
      you know, if Constellation requested something,
    • 01:14:54
      what that was doing. And it seems like you have a workaround
    • 01:14:58
      for that. But as far as,
    • 01:15:01
      you know, having stakeholder input, what if it's
    • 01:15:05
      rejected? Making sure that the IA is reviewed
    • 01:15:09
      or it's prioritized. And all
    • 01:15:13
      of these things that are on this slide
    • 01:15:17
      are things that we do with other changes. And it just
    • 01:15:21
      seems like, like we're duplicating efforts because it's a dashboard and
    • 01:15:24
      because it's a display. And so we're trying to make workaround
    • 01:15:28
      processes for a system that is very well in place
    • 01:15:32
      and works very efficiently. Now we have
    • 01:15:36
      a request. We have a display.
    • 01:15:39
      This is what we're wanting. We want stakeholder participation.
    • 01:15:43
      This will go through the process. Okay, this is going to have an ia.
    • 01:15:46
      What does this look like? Is it approved? Is it rejected?
    • 01:15:50
      Here's where it is. We can, you know, I'm just wondering
    • 01:15:53
      if there's a way that we can have the dashboard, but to create
    • 01:15:57
      a second parallel process seems to be making it very muddy,
    • 01:16:02
      at least in my mind, of why we're trying to
    • 01:16:05
      have the same level of information on
    • 01:16:09
      all the other changes that we do. But for dashboards and,
    • 01:16:12
      and displays, we're going to do something bifurcated and different.
    • 01:16:15
      And that's. That's my hiccup. And I
    • 01:16:20
      support what Caitlin said as far as maybe this needs to be an NPRR,
    • 01:16:25
      but I just feel like I'm wondering if we
    • 01:16:28
      need to reinvent the wheel for something that already works very efficiently.
    • 01:16:32
      And so I've been trying to look at this since September,
    • 01:16:36
      going back, listening to that conversation and figuring out where we are.
    • 01:16:40
      And just the consistent theme is transparency
    • 01:16:45
      and process. And we already have that. And I'm just very
    • 01:16:49
      stumped as to why for dashboards and displays,
    • 01:16:52
      this process needs an entirely different thing.
    • 01:16:55
      And so I just wanted to say that
    • 01:16:59
      I know that we're working hard on this, but.
    • 01:17:04
      So. Yeah, Caitlin.
    • 01:17:10
      Yeah, I just wanted to agree with you, Diana.
    • 01:17:14
      You know, I understand that we don't want to avoid,
    • 01:17:19
      or we would like to avoid the revision request process because
    • 01:17:22
      it's cumbersome, but it seems a little counterintuitive
    • 01:17:26
      to invent a whole new process to avoid
    • 01:17:29
      something that is cumbersome. And I, in comments,
    • 01:17:33
      I keep hearing if it gets rejected,
    • 01:17:36
      if we reject it over and over. And I see that in this process flow,
    • 01:17:40
      and I see ERCOT considerations,
    • 01:17:43
      but it's not we rejecting. And I think we don't have
    • 01:17:47
      clarity around that process. Right. If ERCOT
    • 01:17:50
      rejects something that we think is very valuable, doesn't seem like there would be an
    • 01:17:54
      appeal process. I don't know what ERCOT's obligations
    • 01:17:58
      to us are. Right. If, if they reject something, do they
    • 01:18:02
      have to give us notice? Do they have to tell us
    • 01:18:05
      why? And so to me, it would be easier to use
    • 01:18:09
      the revision request process in place.
    • 01:18:15
      I just need to reinstate that.
    • 01:18:19
      The dashboards, the data that goes into those,
    • 01:18:22
      are not required postings, they are courtesy
    • 01:18:27
      postings. And so to take this and put it into the protocol
    • 01:18:32
      revision request, it puts it into another category.
    • 01:18:36
      So anytime we have any changes, we have
    • 01:18:39
      to follow that process.
    • 01:18:43
      Is that a difficult process to change? I mean, if it's not,
    • 01:18:46
      should it be? I mean, is that a conversation that we should have? I mean,
    • 01:18:49
      if we're trying to put a square peg in a round hole, I mean,
    • 01:18:53
      maybe that's. Maybe we're not looking at the right question.
    • 01:18:59
      Well, it would be a legal decision discussion,
    • 01:19:03
      I think.
    • 01:19:08
      Okay, we have a clear queue. Does anybody else have any thoughts or
    • 01:19:12
      questions for Amy or Cobb?
    • 01:19:20
      No, but thank you so much for bringing this up. I think this is something
    • 01:19:23
      we definitely. It's important to all of us and we certainly want to get it
    • 01:19:26
      right. So we appreciate you coming to, you know, queue this
    • 01:19:30
      up for us. You're welcome. Thank you. Roy, did you have a question
    • 01:19:33
      before she leaves? Yeah, I just.
    • 01:19:36
      I see that it says implemented in 2025.
    • 01:19:40
      Do we have any kind of timeline on when we
    • 01:19:43
      might see something on this other
    • 01:19:47
      than. I do. Not that, but I will definitely
    • 01:19:52
      keep Diana in the loop as to where we are on the process.
    • 01:19:56
      Great, thank you. Thank you again, Amy.
    • 01:20:04
      Mark Smith.
    • 01:20:07
      Yeah. Will there be an opportunity to,
    • 01:20:11
      for stakeholder input on further input on
    • 01:20:14
      this proposal that ERCOT
    • 01:20:18
      staff comes out with? I mean, it seems like there
    • 01:20:21
      ought to be some stakeholder approval process for the new
    • 01:20:25
      process, at least.
    • 01:20:32
      Hold on just a second, Mark. We're going to.
    • 01:20:38
      We're going to get Amy back up to the mic. Hold on one minute.
    • 01:20:47
      So, again, we want to
    • 01:20:50
      be transparent. It is still in
    • 01:20:56
      discussions and we will definitely keep
    • 01:20:59
      everyone informed in that process.
    • 01:21:03
      Did I answer your question,
    • 01:21:13
      Mark? Did that answer your question?
    • 01:21:17
      Yeah, I just wanted to be sure that there would be a
    • 01:21:20
      vehicle for appealing the process if we
    • 01:21:24
      didn't agree with it when you proposed it, finally.
    • 01:21:30
      Okay, thank you.
    • 01:21:33
      Wouldn't be. You're just, you're just going to advise us of what your decision
    • 01:21:37
      is or will we be able to Take this up
    • 01:21:42
      through TAC and the board.
    • 01:21:46
      We will definitely come back and discuss it before it's implemented.
    • 01:21:49
      Yes. Okay, thank you.
    • 01:21:56
      Okay guys, thank you so much. That was good conversation.
    • 01:22:03
      Okay, Corey, I think we
    • 01:22:08
      are going to go back.
    • 01:22:13
      Mr. Career is available.
    • 01:22:17
      Clayton, in your absence, we were talking about all the ways that you love ers
    • 01:22:21
      and the expansion of the budget.
    • 01:22:26
      Just kidding. Go ahead and NPRR1260.
    • Item 7.3 - NPRR1262, Ancillary Service Opt Out Clarification
      01:22:31
      Go ahead and tee up NPRR1262 for us and we'll see
    • 01:22:35
      if we have any questions for you.
    • 01:22:38
      Okay. Yeah. This is an extraordinarily simple NPRR
    • 01:22:43
      deliberately. So what it does,
    • 01:22:46
      it doesn't change anything in the, the protocols.
    • 01:22:49
      What it does is helps folks that
    • 01:22:53
      may not be in the ERCOT process understand that
    • 01:22:57
      in ERCOT we have an opt out provision for
    • 01:23:01
      and specifically CLRs, but really it's anybody that is
    • 01:23:05
      assigned to an ancillary service in that the QSC can elect
    • 01:23:09
      to replace that ancillary service resource with another
    • 01:23:13
      qualified resource. So this is,
    • 01:23:16
      there's really no change to the system here. What is, or no change
    • 01:23:20
      to the protocols or the,
    • 01:23:23
      or anything that is going on here. It is simply adding the
    • 01:23:26
      term opt out, which is specific to
    • 01:23:31
      the settlement or the, I'm sorry, the ruling by the
    • 01:23:35
      Patent Office in a case that we had with Lancium
    • 01:23:38
      on their claim that they
    • 01:23:42
      own CLR provision by, among other things,
    • 01:23:46
      Bitcoin mining. So what this is designed to
    • 01:23:50
      do is to help any court or anybody that is looking at
    • 01:23:54
      this understand, understand that yes, an opt out provision
    • 01:23:57
      is available for ancillary services in ERCOT and
    • 01:24:00
      therefore the Lancian patents do not apply.
    • 01:24:08
      So that's pretty much it in a nutshell.
    • 01:24:12
      Okay, thank you, Clayton.
    • 01:24:16
      Any questions?
    • 01:24:20
      Evan? Everybody, this is
    • 01:24:23
      Evan Neal with Lancium. I just want to respond to Clayton's comments here.
    • 01:24:27
      And we did also file comments ourselves on the NPRRs
    • 01:24:32
      additional comments that he filed as a follow up to the original NPRR.
    • 01:24:36
      I mean, just generally speaking, you know, we've been working with ERCOT for a while
    • 01:24:40
      kind of behind closed doors to resolve this issue that Clayton is bringing up.
    • 01:24:43
      Resolving the topic just kind of in general, we don't
    • 01:24:47
      really agree with the assertions that they're making
    • 01:24:50
      in their comments. But because this could be subject to
    • 01:24:54
      future litigation in federal courts, we don't really want to comment here and we don't
    • 01:24:57
      really feel that PRS or ERCOT stakeholder process is really
    • 01:25:00
      the appropriate, appropriate place for hashing this out.
    • 01:25:04
      So to that end, you know, ultimately we would,
    • 01:25:08
      we would like for this to be rejected but we would also
    • 01:25:12
      support a motion to table this for a few months so we can continue our
    • 01:25:14
      ongoing negotiations to sort this out behind closed doors.
    • 01:25:19
      Thank you, Evan. Matt,
    • 01:25:23
      good afternoon. This is Matt, our regulatory council with ERCOT.
    • 01:25:28
      We did file comments asking for PRS to consider tabling
    • 01:25:32
      this NPRR.
    • 01:25:36
      I don't have a position, I don't have ERCOT's position on the substance
    • 01:25:40
      of this NPRR at this time. I think we would potentially be
    • 01:25:43
      interested in tabling it and coming back to that in the first quarter.
    • 01:25:48
      I do think it is important for transparency to all
    • 01:25:51
      to let y'all know that
    • 01:25:55
      ERCOT has had discussions with Lancium.
    • 01:25:59
      As Evan was just mentioning,
    • 01:26:02
      Lancium did bring a patent
    • 01:26:05
      licensing proposal to ERCOT for
    • 01:26:08
      consideration. Just to clarify,
    • 01:26:11
      you know, I wouldn't characterize that as working with or negotiating.
    • 01:26:15
      I think we're really just trying to understand what that proposal is.
    • 01:26:18
      And if, if that were ever to be
    • 01:26:22
      done, I think it would be done in a transparent fashion.
    • 01:26:26
      But we've also had discussions with Cholla and the Blockchain
    • 01:26:30
      Council. So really it's a novel
    • 01:26:34
      issue and ERCOT is just trying to make sure that we kind of
    • 01:26:38
      understand where everyone's coming from on that.
    • 01:26:42
      So we would for that reason just ask
    • 01:26:46
      y'all to consider tabling it. Thank you, Matt.
    • 01:26:50
      Clayton.
    • 01:26:55
      Yeah, so I'm a little confused as to why
    • 01:26:58
      anybody would want this rejected. There is no change to the
    • 01:27:02
      protocols. It simply makes it clear that that is the way you opt out.
    • 01:27:06
      So the comments that we're trying to litigate this in ERCOT,
    • 01:27:09
      that is actually far from the truth. We're trying to just make
    • 01:27:13
      it clear so that if any litigation did arise, there would be a
    • 01:27:16
      clear path for anybody to understand that
    • 01:27:20
      there is an opt out provision in ERCOT and this is the way you do
    • 01:27:23
      it. Now, if there's some other interpretation that Lancium has
    • 01:27:27
      on the way that ruling came out, then that's certainly fine
    • 01:27:30
      and they can try to impose that. But as far as the validity of this
    • 01:27:34
      NPRR, there is no change. So it's just
    • 01:27:38
      a clarification.
    • 01:27:45
      Thank you, Clayton. Bill,
    • 01:27:49
      you have a few questions on this and
    • 01:27:53
      kind of admittedly from the top, sympathetic to Chola's
    • 01:27:58
      position on this because we have customers that are basically
    • 01:28:02
      being prevented from participating as CLRs, which is a pretty big concern
    • 01:28:06
      for us. So,
    • 01:28:10
      and I do, I appreciate the comments followed by both Lansium
    • 01:28:14
      and Cholla on this and ERCOT. One of my
    • 01:28:17
      questions was, I think partially addressed, but the reference to negotiations
    • 01:28:22
      Stakeholder negotiations in the Lansing comments. I wonder if I can get
    • 01:28:25
      more perspective from Lancium
    • 01:28:30
      on what that entails, what the potential
    • 01:28:35
      offering for a compromise solution is.
    • 01:28:39
      I'm just curious how that could potentially be resolved through these negotiations.
    • 01:28:43
      So, Evan, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that.
    • 01:28:46
      Yeah, I appreciate that, Bill. And I'm kind
    • 01:28:50
      of hesitant to speak on it further just because we don't have legal counsel here
    • 01:28:53
      and admittedly, you know, fairly new to Lancium, I have been involved
    • 01:28:57
      with those quote unquote negotiations from a distance.
    • 01:29:00
      So I think we listed Keith as the primary
    • 01:29:04
      contact who's our general counsel for Lancium. So I'd be happy
    • 01:29:08
      to connect you too if you want to discuss further.
    • 01:29:13
      Okay. Does this, you might not be the answer to this question,
    • 01:29:17
      but maybe. Matt, I don't know if you're up to speed on this. Does this
    • 01:29:20
      NPRR impact the patent dispute in any way?
    • 01:29:28
      I think just from hearing Clayton's comments and
    • 01:29:31
      reading the language of it, I understand that that
    • 01:29:35
      is Chola's position, but ERCOT is not
    • 01:29:39
      taking a position on that at this time. Okay.
    • 01:29:45
      And then Clayton, do you have any sense
    • 01:29:48
      on how much this is preventing existing CLRs
    • 01:29:52
      in participating in the ERCOT markets?
    • 01:29:57
      Yeah, we know that it's, it's causing all the Bitcoin miners pause.
    • 01:30:01
      There's, there are a few of them that have went ahead and
    • 01:30:05
      bought the product from Lancium because of that, but there are a lot
    • 01:30:08
      of others that use other products and Lancium have sued at
    • 01:30:12
      least one of those providers. So at least everybody
    • 01:30:16
      kind of in a, in a. Unknown area.
    • 01:30:20
      The idea is that it would be best if all these guys were
    • 01:30:24
      in not only doing the CLR provision, but doing,
    • 01:30:27
      doing it with, you know, telemetry. Even the SCAD that doesn't require
    • 01:30:31
      CLR in, you know, with the telemetry,
    • 01:30:34
      so that ERCOT always has the availability. But as soon as you do any kind
    • 01:30:38
      of qualification and you're putting a big target on your back and
    • 01:30:45
      then Matt, it sounds like you guys are involved in these negotiations.
    • 01:30:48
      I'm curious, what's ERCOT's perspective?
    • 01:30:53
      Yes. So as I was mentioning and I
    • 01:30:56
      think as Evan raised,
    • 01:31:00
      Lancium did bring us a proposal
    • 01:31:04
      to license
    • 01:31:09
      their intellectual property for market participants.
    • 01:31:13
      So, you know, again, I would not characterize
    • 01:31:17
      it as negotiations. I think that ERCOT's
    • 01:31:20
      discussions with Lancium have just been around trying to understand what exactly
    • 01:31:24
      that proposal is. And I
    • 01:31:30
      expect those conversations to continue.
    • 01:31:34
      But to be clear, you know, ERCOT is not agreeing
    • 01:31:39
      to or negotiating anything. I think anything like a licensing
    • 01:31:43
      proposal would need to come to
    • 01:31:47
      the stakeholders at some point before.
    • 01:31:50
      Sorry, I don't want to ask questions you can't answer,
    • 01:31:53
      but ERCOT to be licensing the software or
    • 01:31:57
      market participants for CLRs,
    • 01:32:01
      I think it's, that's probably something
    • 01:32:04
      I can't get into at this time. But I think those would be the kind
    • 01:32:07
      of questions I understand stakeholders would be interested in if this were to
    • 01:32:11
      proceed. Yeah, very much so.
    • 01:32:13
      Okay, Matt, quick question for you.
    • 01:32:17
      So is this
    • 01:32:21
      the right avenue? This is the question that I had and I'm glad
    • 01:32:25
      that you're here today. So they're asking for
    • 01:32:28
      a review of this patent and
    • 01:32:33
      the impact it would have on these types of resources.
    • 01:32:37
      Is this typically the avenue in which those requests are made?
    • 01:32:41
      Is it through an NPRR, an alternative
    • 01:32:45
      process that would
    • 01:32:48
      make more legal sense? I'm not sure if there's
    • 01:32:52
      just some optionality there. Yeah,
    • 01:32:55
      that's a good question. You know,
    • 01:33:04
      I want to make sure that I'm not stepping too
    • 01:33:08
      far ahead of anything. I think that what JOLA
    • 01:33:11
      is raising with this NPRR,
    • 01:33:14
      Jola is alleging. Well, I won't speak for them beyond what's in there
    • 01:33:19
      comments, but they're alleging that this NPRR would get to a,
    • 01:33:23
      an intellectual property question.
    • 01:33:27
      And so of course, intellectual property,
    • 01:33:31
      that is not my area of expertise, as everybody knows.
    • 01:33:33
      But there is a, you know,
    • 01:33:37
      there's court litigation for that. There's, there's the Patent
    • 01:33:41
      Office as well. But,
    • 01:33:46
      you know, setting that aside, I think ERCOT
    • 01:33:50
      stakeholders can always address things that are impactful
    • 01:33:54
      to the ERCOT market through revision request processes.
    • 01:33:59
      So, you know, I think
    • 01:34:04
      that's probably about all I would say at this point. And just say we would,
    • 01:34:07
      you know, I think probably not.
    • 01:34:12
      Well, yeah, just that we would probably have more of a position in the
    • 01:34:15
      first quarter. I appreciate that. I didn't ask that question
    • 01:34:20
      to put you into waters that you're not supposed to be in. I'm just
    • 01:34:24
      wondering if this is the right avenue for
    • 01:34:28
      these discussions in this forum.
    • 01:34:31
      So I appreciate it. Sorry if that was an unfair question.
    • 01:34:36
      Bill. Matt, do you know when.
    • 01:34:40
      What's the next step for the negotiations? I think
    • 01:34:44
      we would be interested in an update. Obviously, we're not
    • 01:34:47
      going to move this forward today. It doesn't sound like people aren't comfortable,
    • 01:34:51
      but we would be very
    • 01:34:55
      much interested in what the potential deal
    • 01:34:59
      here is. You mentioned licensing, and if ERCOT's
    • 01:35:03
      paying for a license would be curious who's ultimately responsible for that cost.
    • 01:35:09
      So I yeah, I'm just curious
    • 01:35:13
      on what, when the next meeting is, next steps, will we have an update in
    • 01:35:17
      January or is this going to be longer than that?
    • 01:35:22
      I would say, you know,
    • 01:35:26
      ERCOT's still trying to understand what
    • 01:35:29
      is being proposed, so I
    • 01:35:34
      can't commit to a timeline yet. I would say probably
    • 01:35:38
      January is too soon, maybe February would be more likely.
    • 01:35:41
      But it's certainly our goal to address this
    • 01:35:46
      in the first quarter of next year. Okay, thank you,
    • 01:35:50
      Ian.
    • 01:35:57
      Sorry, I'm trying to gather how I want to ask this. So,
    • 01:36:00
      Matt, there's an NPRR
    • 01:36:04
      out there. I'm thinking, I'm laying
    • 01:36:07
      out how I'm thinking about this and tell me where I'm wrong or tell me
    • 01:36:11
      I'm missing kind of thing. Cholla has
    • 01:36:19
      presented an NPRR to clarify the protocols.
    • 01:36:23
      Part B of that is they believe that that
    • 01:36:27
      then has other ramifications to things
    • 01:36:30
      outside the ERCOT process.
    • 01:36:33
      ERCOT is hoping for additional time for these
    • 01:36:37
      discussions that they're having to create a
    • 01:36:42
      more complete idea in Q1 of
    • 01:36:46
      their thoughts of this that then could help
    • 01:36:50
      stakeholders understand if the
    • 01:36:54
      clarifications CHOIA is presenting to the protocols have
    • 01:37:00
      impacts outside of just the protocols.
    • 01:37:04
      Am I thinking about this in a semi decent
    • 01:37:08
      way? I think that's right. Okay. Okay.
    • 01:37:12
      Yeah. And then my question would be
    • 01:37:15
      to ERCOT in Q1 is to really help
    • 01:37:19
      stakeholders understand are we overstepping our
    • 01:37:23
      bounds by clarifying our protocols or not?
    • 01:37:26
      Because that's all at the end of the day, that I would
    • 01:37:30
      think we are doing by clarifying the protocols, or I should
    • 01:37:34
      say by adopting this. NPRR. Thank you.
    • 01:37:38
      Thank you, Ann Clayton.
    • 01:37:44
      Yeah, I don't know if Ian was intending to tee me up or not,
    • 01:37:47
      but. Yeah, that, that is the question. I mean,
    • 01:37:51
      anybody can clarify the protocols and that's all this is.
    • 01:37:55
      So I, I think the part B argument in
    • 01:37:58
      Ian's discussion there puts
    • 01:38:02
      it in ERCOT's court to kind of rule on whether or not
    • 01:38:05
      ERCOT believes that it applies in the
    • 01:38:10
      intellectual property or not. Which, you know,
    • 01:38:13
      to be honest, I don't know if that's ERCOT's to answer. It seems to be
    • 01:38:17
      more of a Patent Office slash,
    • 01:38:20
      you know, court system type question. So I don't even know if
    • 01:38:24
      we need to go there. So the question is, what are we really
    • 01:38:28
      trying to do? And I don't see any reason to hold up a
    • 01:38:31
      clarification of the protocols for some decision
    • 01:38:35
      in that realm. And what am I missing? I guess I
    • 01:38:48
      think that might have been to Matt.
    • 01:38:51
      Sorry, I wasn't sure. If that was to me,
    • 01:38:55
      I think those
    • 01:38:58
      are, I think all of the right questions. I can't commit at this point in
    • 01:39:02
      time to how or what position ERCOT will
    • 01:39:06
      take, but I can say that we are continuing to
    • 01:39:09
      try to understand the landscape and expect to have more
    • 01:39:14
      in the first quarter, but that's probably all I can say at this time.
    • 01:39:18
      Okay. And I would just clarify, as has been
    • 01:39:22
      pointed out, that we're kind of holding up on reliability in the system
    • 01:39:26
      for that decision.
    • 01:39:30
      And I guess. I'm sorry, I had another point, if I can.
    • 01:39:34
      Diana, to your point, this has been researched
    • 01:39:38
      in the patent court system. The results of the patent
    • 01:39:42
      court system are what I have put in
    • 01:39:46
      my comments, and I can follow up and provide the
    • 01:39:49
      documents, the actual root documents for those
    • 01:39:53
      if that would help. I'll just file those as
    • 01:39:57
      another set of comments. That would be perfect. Clayton,
    • 01:40:00
      thank you. You bet,
    • 01:40:05
      Caitlin.
    • 01:40:11
      Thanks, Diana. I don't know
    • 01:40:14
      want to get involved in this one. I just wanted to say I really appreciated
    • 01:40:19
      the way Ian laid this out. Right. I think part
    • 01:40:24
      A is the protocol clarification.
    • 01:40:27
      Part B is how that gets applied.
    • 01:40:31
      And I think very little, if any of how
    • 01:40:34
      that gets applied is really under stakeholder purview.
    • 01:40:38
      You know, I think you signed on to chair
    • 01:40:42
      PRs, not to be judge of a patent court
    • 01:40:46
      and thinking about things like, right, we do things,
    • 01:40:51
      price corrections, other things, a lot that affect the
    • 01:40:56
      ICE market. And we're aware of that, we talk about it,
    • 01:41:00
      but we only pull that into the stakeholder
    • 01:41:04
      process, you know, in a. In a very limited
    • 01:41:08
      manner. That's. That's not our purview at all. So I
    • 01:41:11
      think kind of keeping in mind the part A
    • 01:41:15
      that we're responsible for and trying to make
    • 01:41:19
      kind of that judgment call based on what we're experts
    • 01:41:23
      in and the protocol that we see them is
    • 01:41:28
      really where we should focus kind of
    • 01:41:31
      generally, not. Not really speaking to the specific issue.
    • 01:41:38
      Thank you, Caitlin.
    • Item 10 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Diana Coleman
      01:41:43
      So it sounds like this one was
    • 01:41:48
      favored to be tabled.
    • 01:41:52
      Is that what I heard from everybody? Table this item. All right,
    • 01:41:57
      Corey, we can go. Can put
    • 01:42:01
      NPRR1262 on the combo
    • 01:42:06
      ballot to table. What?
    • 01:42:10
      Sorry, did I miss something? No, I'm just making sure that you just
    • 01:42:13
      say the true statement that everyone is comfortable with having the tabling of NPRR1262
    • 01:42:17
      on the combo ballot. Nobody wanted to make a. Any other decisions
    • 01:42:22
      in case. Yeah, in case anybody wanted to recommend approval or. Or they didn't want
    • 01:42:25
      it to be tabled or whatever. I just didn't want to go too far down
    • 01:42:28
      that path. But I'm not seeing anything getting heads and
    • 01:42:31
      phones, so I guess I'm okay. Cool. Clayton,
    • 01:42:35
      you had a question for you. Yeah,
    • 01:42:38
      I mean, I don't want a table indefinitely. Can we make sure that we pick
    • 01:42:42
      this back up next month?
    • 01:42:45
      It didn't sound like it would be ready in January. I'm not sure
    • 01:42:49
      if I misunderstood that, but I think. I think the commitment was first quarter of
    • 01:42:53
      next next year. And so I think it may be better suited
    • 01:42:56
      to just be tabled. Matt, did I hear that correctly? I guess
    • 01:43:00
      I would just say. I mean, ERCOT's not opposed to revisiting this at the
    • 01:43:04
      January PRS meeting. And if we have something then, of course we'll raise
    • 01:43:07
      it then. But yeah,
    • 01:43:10
      tabled items are always available to be taken up at every PRS
    • 01:43:14
      meeting because they're noticed for a possible vote. So it can
    • 01:43:18
      be taken up whenever for discussion. So what is the will of
    • 01:43:21
      the group? Would we prefer to have it tabled or tabled for a
    • 01:43:25
      time certain?
    • 01:43:29
      I'm okay with just the regular table if that helps to go through.
    • 01:43:34
      Okay. All about the holiday spirit.
    • 01:43:38
      Okay, so sounds like we're good to
    • 01:43:42
      have it tabled with no time certainty on it.
    • 01:43:47
      And then as Corey reminded us, anything that's tabled is always available
    • 01:43:51
      for us to have discussion at future PRS meetings.
    • 01:44:08
      Okay.
    • 01:44:13
      All right, so Corey brought up the combo ballot of
    • 01:44:17
      all the items. We'll need a motion and a second to
    • 01:44:21
      vote on the items that Corey has up on the screen. We have a motion
    • 01:44:24
      by bill. We have a second second
    • 01:44:30
      by Jim Lee.
    • 01:44:34
      Thank you, everybody. All right, let's give Corey just a
    • 01:44:37
      second and we'll get that teed up. All right,
    • 01:44:41
      Giving it folks every chance on the phone to take a look.
    • 01:44:48
      All right, on our motion to approve the combo ballot, we will start up with
    • 01:44:51
      consumers. Still no Eric.
    • 01:44:57
      How about start with Melissa? Yes, thanks,
    • 01:44:59
      Corey. Thank you. Onto our co ops.
    • 01:45:02
      Lucas. Yes, thank you.
    • 01:45:06
      Thank you. Still have Eric.
    • 01:45:09
      Le on to our
    • 01:45:13
      independent generators. Andy. Yes,
    • 01:45:16
      thanks, Corey. Thank you. Alex.
    • 01:45:19
      Yes, thank you. Caitlin?
    • 01:45:26
      Yes, thank you. David.
    • 01:45:29
      Yes, thank you. Thank you. On to
    • 01:45:33
      our WMS. John.
    • 01:45:36
      Yes, thanks, sir. Onto our IREPs bill.
    • 01:45:40
      Yes, thank you,
    • 01:45:44
      Aaron. Onto our IOUs.
    • 01:45:48
      Martha. Yes, thank you, Jim. Yes, thanks.
    • 01:45:51
      Thank you. On to our munis. Diana. Yes, thank you,
    • 01:45:58
      Ashley and Faye.
    • 01:46:02
      Yes. Thank you, Corey. Thank you. Motion carries unanimously.
    • 01:46:06
      Thank you all. Thank you, Corey.
    • 01:46:12
      Okay, so I believe that takes us to the
    • 01:46:16
      end. Just as a note, next year we are
    • 01:46:19
      having PRS on Wednesdays instead of Thursdays,
    • 01:46:23
      so we don't Have a really fun filled day like we did today with open
    • 01:46:27
      meeting and trying to work through those logistics.
    • 01:46:30
      And just real quickly, big thank you
    • 01:46:33
      to everybody. I know that there's a lot of things that we are all working
    • 01:46:37
      on and we could not do this up here without all of you.
    • 01:46:41
      Thank you to Corey and Troy and Susie and everybody
    • 01:46:45
      that is Erin, everybody who is
    • 01:46:49
      just helping us work these meetings, the prep, the files.
    • 01:46:53
      It's a lot of work that goes on behind the scene and it doesn't get
    • 01:46:56
      said enough. So thank you so much. We appreciate it. Thank you all for letting
    • 01:46:59
      us be up here this year. We appreciate it.
    • 01:47:03
      Andy, did you have anything? No. Second all of that and again
    • 01:47:06
      appreciate ERCOT support for us. There's a lot that happens behind the scenes.
    • 01:47:09
      Martha knows that and we really appreciate all the back
    • 01:47:13
      work that you all do so that PRS can run as smoothly as it
    • 01:47:17
      can. And maybe with that I'll hand it to Marca.
    • 01:47:20
      Yeah, thanks. I just had a quick administrative topic
    • 01:47:23
      I wanted to raise before we adjourn. So I know
    • 01:47:27
      that the remain tabled list is not being sent by email
    • 01:47:30
      anymore because that was causing some confusion or maybe
    • 01:47:34
      some false expectations about what was eligible for a vote.
    • 01:47:37
      But I wanted to ask whether going into 2025,
    • 01:47:41
      PRS leadership and in market roles could maybe have a discussion
    • 01:47:45
      outside of the meeting about whether Corey could send
    • 01:47:49
      perhaps the anticipated combo ballot by email sometime
    • 01:47:53
      before the meeting. That would at least kind of flag the items that either
    • 01:47:58
      have IAS ready that look uncontroversial by
    • 01:48:02
      no impact or have received a subcommittee recomm
    • 01:48:05
      recommendation that where at that subcommittee there was
    • 01:48:09
      unanimous approval. Therefore it looks like a combo ballot item.
    • 01:48:12
      So not looking for an answer today, but would just appreciate
    • 01:48:16
      if that's something you all could consider for next year. Thanks,
    • 01:48:22
      that's helpful. And I think, you know, we did have
    • 01:48:26
      something like that. We had an iteration of that previously and then there
    • 01:48:30
      were some questions as to what was sent and
    • 01:48:34
      then there would be something that was discussed that may have not been included
    • 01:48:38
      on that list. And so that's why we will
    • 01:48:42
      have those conversations that anything that's tabled is
    • 01:48:45
      up for discussion at PRS.
    • 01:48:48
      But it's a good suggestion because there are and that's why we've
    • 01:48:52
      started spending some time on the tabled Items under section
    • 01:48:55
      6. Maybe not every. Everybody's plugged into all the different
    • 01:48:59
      iterations of those meetings. And so our goal with Section
    • 01:49:02
      six is just a quick update and if somebody was at
    • 01:49:06
      those meetings, maybe there was something that was discussed that,
    • 01:49:10
      you know, they would like PRS's input on or a conversation
    • 01:49:14
      on that, but just flagging it and letting it know
    • 01:49:17
      because there we had it pared down and now we're starting
    • 01:49:21
      to expand the table list. It's certainly worth
    • 01:49:24
      considering because there is an email list, but I
    • 01:49:28
      think everybody gets so many emails that sometimes it's hard to
    • 01:49:32
      keep up with all the emails and the different iterations of the comments
    • 01:49:36
      and maybe what's ready or maybe somebody has asked this to be
    • 01:49:39
      tabled for an additional month. So it's a good suggestion.
    • 01:49:43
      We'll definitely look at it for next year.
    • 01:49:46
      Roy and Bob, I see you're second to Martha's
    • 01:49:49
      too, so thank you. Go ahead, Roy. Yeah, I was going to say I
    • 01:49:53
      appreciate Martha's request. I think, you know,
    • 01:49:56
      maybe just a disclaimer, you know, to go in the email regarding
    • 01:50:01
      anything that's tabled could be brought up. You know,
    • 01:50:05
      might might be a good way to manage that so that expectations
    • 01:50:09
      are not, you know, out of bounds. Thanks.
    • 01:50:13
      Yeah, Roy, this is Andy and we've had side
    • 01:50:17
      conversations about that specific thing. I think one of the concerns was because it
    • 01:50:20
      was coming from ERCOT, it seemed a little bit more formal. And so one
    • 01:50:24
      of the things we explored was as the chair and vice chair, we would
    • 01:50:27
      be kind of giving a. Almost like a straw man,
    • 01:50:31
      if you want to call it that, in terms of what we know,
    • 01:50:35
      given the conversations, you know, based on subcommittee
    • 01:50:40
      unanimous approvals. But to your point, having a disclosure
    • 01:50:43
      too is a kind of a catch all but making it seem like
    • 01:50:47
      that we're not stopping anyone from bringing
    • 01:50:51
      anything up. But again, on the flip side, it's folks want to
    • 01:50:54
      be aware that if they weren't paying attention, things that have been unanimously
    • 01:50:58
      moving across the working groups and subcommittees, you know, it's about to
    • 01:51:02
      hit NPRRs and the time is now and sometimes folks
    • 01:51:05
      may be potentially not as plugged in and may have missed
    • 01:51:08
      the mark there. So appreciate everyone's comments here. We're certainly
    • 01:51:12
      going to look to do something here in Q1 of 2025 to continue
    • 01:51:16
      to make NPRRs more efficient.
    • Item 11 - Adjourn - Diana Coleman
      01:51:21
      Excellent. Thank you. All right
    • 01:51:26
      with that, have a good holiday everybody.
    • 01:51:29
      Thank you so much for being here and we will see you all next year.
    2024-prs-combined-ballot-20241212
    Dec 12, 2024 - xls - 113 KB
    2024-prs-nprr1251-ballot-20241212
    Dec 12, 2024 - xls - 111 KB
    Agenda_prs_20241212_v2
    Dec 10, 2024 - docx - 45.7 KB
    Draft-minutes-prs-20241114
    Dec 05, 2024 - docx - 76.2 KB
    Prs_december_2024_project_update
    Dec 10, 2024 - pptx - 234.5 KB
    Mp-guide-for-dashboard-roadmap
    Dec 10, 2024 - pptx - 404.9 KB
    December-12,-2024-prs-meeting-materials
    Dec 10, 2024 - zip - 7.9 MB