Lone Star opposes Oncor's blanket ban on new interconnections on series compensation lines, suggesting it is not prudent and can be managed with known solutions.
There is concern about a capacity shortfall in the ERCOT region due to growing energy demand, highlighting the ill timing of PGRR120.
Lone Star suggests ERCOT look at energy needs holistically, considering upcoming demands from AI and data center growth.
Banning new generation on series compensated lines could lead to underutilization of resources.
Lone Star proposes including valid exceptions for generators in PGRR120 and suggests solutions for mitigating risk from oscillatory issues.
Several solutions have been implemented or proposed by Lone Star, including installing SSFR relays and bypassing cap banks upon detection of N-1 conditions as short-term measures.
Long-term solutions include networking with other transmission lines.
Concerns were raised that SSR events are not being adequately captured in studies. Better modeling (such as transformer saturation modeling) could improve identification of these issues.
ERCOT's high-level concerns include that proposed mitigation strategies might not capture all potential issues, and operational schemes like breaker configuration are not universally applicable.
Helen Kemp from Splight expressed agreement with Lone Star's comments regarding mitigating SSO risks instead of outright prohibiting generator connections.
Helen proposed adding Dynamic Contingency Management (DCM) to the list of technologies to enhance system reinforcement.
DCM monitors resource status on series compensated lines in sub-second intervals, using advanced computing to reduce injection or take the compensation offline if SSO is detected.
DCM can be installed by a generator in conjunction with the Transmission Service Provider (TSP).
Splight has successfully implemented this technology in South America and is beginning operations in North America.
ERCOT did not get a chance to file formal comments.
Proposal to table the discussion and revisit it in March.
Megan Miller addressed a question from the last PLWG meeting regarding a discrepancy in a sensitivity study related to series capacitors in the ERCOT EHV report.
The discrepancy was due to differences in accounting for double circuits, not a change in content.
▶️6 - PGRR122 – Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load
LCRA submitted comments on PGRR122 with aims to create greater flexibility for future improvements.
Comments included clarity on maximum load loss criteria for N-1 and N-2 contingency events.
Alignment was made between the definition of total load loss to the NERC definitions.
Jeff Billo from ERCOT acknowledged the comments, agreeing with initial reviews but needed more time for detailed analysis.
Raja Kakarla from CenterPoint Energy sought clarification on voltage sensitive load response, Andrew Hamann clarified using NERC language.
Eithar Nashawati from Oncor also expressed the need for more time to review the comments.
Monica Jha sought explanations on the bullet about single generating unit inclusions; Andrew Hamann and Jeff Billo explained it was to ensure clarity on contingency event definitions.
Consensus to table PGRR122 until March to allow further review was reached with no objections.
▶️7 - NPRR1272 – Voltage Support at Private Use Networks
