ERCOT Regional Planning Group Meeting Notes - 2/12

Agenda

1.     Antitrust Admonition

2.     Miscellaneous Updates

3.     EIR Status Update - Rio Medina Project

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given to update to options being considered for this project.

b.     This project is a Tier 2 project to serve new load near Rio Medina. ERCOT selected Option 5 because it is lowest cost and provides operational flexibility. It is projected to cost $71M

4.     EIR Status Update - San Miguel to Marion 345-kV Project

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given to update to options being considered for this project.

b.     This project is a Tier 1 project to address overload in the San Antonio area, and is expected to cost $259M. ERCOT reviewed the option they have considered and introduced an additional option.

c.     The final recommendation is expected in Q1 2024.

5.     Oncor Temple Area Project

a.     Presentation posted and given by Oncor. The project is anticipated to be a Tier 1 to resolve thermal violations and provide an additional source in the area.

6.     ERCOT Independent Review Scope: Temple Area Project

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given to present the study scope for Oncor’s new project submission.

b.     They expect the final recommendation in Q2 2024.

c.     ERCOT was asked whether there would be any new LFL in the model case and responded that they do not have new additional loads to add, aside from what was already included in the model.

7.     ERCOT Independent Review Scope: West Texas 345-kV Infrastructure Rebuild Project

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given to present the status of the study for this project. This builds on the Permian Basin study.

b.     This study is nearly complete and the final recommendation should be presented next month.

c.     A TSP asked about the dispatch level of ESR’s in the model scenarios. ERCOT used a 4-hour duration for the dispatch criteria, however, they do reflect the reactive capability. Another assumption is that all load is firm, i.e., none is dispatchable. Synchronous condensers were not incorporated since their installation will be occurring at the same time this project would be constructed.

8.     2024 RTP Load Review Update

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given. The comparison shown here is without LFL’s, and uses ERCOT’s 90% forecast.

b.     ERCOT included a pathway for TSP’s to suggest adding quantifiable load on top of the ERCOT load forecast. The language is similar to process discussed within the pending NPRR1180 and PGRR107. A stakeholder asked about the 22GW of large loads that have been discussed in the SSWG case discussions. ERCOT stated that those are separate.

9.     2024 RTP Assumptions

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given. This year’s case captures more wind by setting the wind at the CDR weighted capacity factor to scale it more uniformly, based on each wind zone.

b.     This year ERCOT will not be basing batteries on duration, however SODG will not be part of this change. Rooftop solar is also included at a weather zone level.

c.     A stakeholder asked to clarify the battery assumptions and ERCOT responded that 20.3% of their max discharge capability will be assumed as a dispatch capacity for both transmission and distribution, independent of duration. A stakeholder asked how many batteries are on the system that are more than 4-hour duration. ERCOT replied that last year’s RTP only had one.

10.  ERCOT Status Update - Permian Basin Reliability Plan Study

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given to share the status of the PUC-required study. The final study results are expected in June, and the final report will be issued in July.

b.      Oncor provided the S&P Global forecast for load and additional load information has been received from AEP, LCRA, TNMP, and Oncor to include in the study. They will use the 2024 RTP assumptions, otherwise, for the study, which were presented above. There will be 2030 and 2038 cases. For the 2030 case the load totaled ~24GW and for the 2038 case it totaled ~26.7GW. These are much higher than the 16.6GW of load in the 2023 RTP. Oil and gas load represents half of the load and the other half represents other load, predominantly data center and crypto load. These loads are as high as the coastal and north central load zones.

c.     For generation ERCOT is using the CDR levels, and other assumptions discussed in the RTP presentations, above.

d.     All of the load included is assumed to be firm, non-dispatchable load.

e.     These loads will be included in the RTP so the load cases are likely to be posted, at some point.

f.      Generators challenged the amount of load incorporated into these study cases. ERCOT responded that TSP’s have indicated high confidence in the load data that they have provided. A stakeholder asked whether the passage of NPRR1180 would change these assumptions and the answer was no, that this load input is closed.

g.     There may be a dynamic study incorporated into this study, but that is still under discussion.

11.  Update on Financial Assumptions for ERCOT Economic Planning Criteria

a.     ERCOT presentation posted and given.

b.     For this planning horizon they are using the GRR and the PCS to evaluate potential economic projects.

c.     The percentages used to approximate first year revenue requirement and 3-year average revenue requirement for the cost side of these equations have shifted from 13.2% to 12.9%, and from 12.9% to 12.6%, respectively.

d.     For depreciation, ERCOT used a 30-year straight line.

12.  Adjourn