09/11/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 0:01:32
Duration 3:03:43
Loaded: 0.91%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 3:02:11
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Item 0 - Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Pamela Hanson
    00:00:15
    Good morning, everyone. Please take your seats. This is
  • 00:00:18
    Pamela Hanson with ERCOT. We'll get started in a few minutes, so I have
  • 00:00:22
    some meeting reminders to make things go smoothly. If you're here
  • 00:00:25
    in the room, please remember to sign in. The sign in sheet is in the
  • 00:00:29
    hall outside the room. We have a managed queue. If you'd
  • 00:00:32
    like to join the discussion and you're on WebEx, please place your name in the
  • 00:00:36
    chat. If you're in the meeting room, please raise your table tent.
  • 00:00:40
    If you're on WebEx or have called into the meeting, please remain on mute
  • 00:00:43
    until the chair recognizes you. Should the meeting or audio end unexpectedly,
  • 00:00:48
    please log back in using the same WebEx information posted to
  • 00:00:51
    the meeting page. We vote by ballot. When it's your segment's
  • 00:00:55
    turn to vote, please remember to unmute and check that you are not double muted,
  • 00:00:59
    and then return to mute after you have voted. Mister Blakey, you have
  • 00:01:02
    quorum whenever you're ready to begin. Great. Thank you, Pamela. Good morning,
  • 00:01:06
    WMS members and guests. Welcome to the
  • 00:01:10
    September WMS meeting.
  • 00:01:13
    We have a hopefully somewhat
  • 00:01:17
    normal schedule today, so hopefully won't be going too late,
  • 00:01:20
    but we will. We will move forward.
  • 00:01:24
    We have the antitrust statement, antitrust admonition,
  • 00:01:28
    as it's more commonly called. And I
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
    00:01:32
    think we're all familiar with this. But to avoid raising concerns about antitrust
  • 00:01:36
    liability, participants in ERCOT activity should refrain from proposing
  • 00:01:39
    any action or measure that would exceed ERCOT's authority under federal or state law.
  • 00:01:43
    So if you have any questions, please,
  • 00:01:46
    please talk to ERCOT. Okay, next, we have agenda
  • 00:01:51
    review and also want to
  • 00:01:55
    announce some of our proxies and alternate reps for today.
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
    00:01:59
    As far as the agenda, it was posted last week.
  • 00:02:03
    And we have the normal updates and ERCOT
  • 00:02:09
    reports, working group reports,
  • 00:02:13
    and a few protocol revisions that we'll
  • 00:02:16
    go through. Was there anything that anyone was
  • 00:02:19
    hoping to see added to the agenda?
  • 00:02:26
    Okay. Hearing none. The proxies and alternate
  • 00:02:30
    reps. For Eric Goff, we have Nabaraj
  • 00:02:34
    from OPEC. Will be filling in for Eric.
  • 00:02:38
    And for Blake Colt, we have Trevor
  • 00:02:42
    Safko from LCRA. So welcome, Trevor. We have
  • 00:02:46
    for Resmi, we have Shane Thomas.
  • 00:02:50
    And for Anoush,
  • 00:02:54
    we have Bill Barnes. And for Vincent
  • 00:02:58
    Roberts, Rob Bevel.
  • 00:03:01
    So, welcome, everyone.
  • 00:03:04
    And we. Without further ado,
  • Item 3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Vote - Eric Blakey
    00:03:07
    we will move forward to item number three, which is
  • 00:03:12
    we did not have the July minutes last month, and so
  • 00:03:16
    we now have the minutes for the July 10 meeting.
  • 00:03:20
    We will look at the August minutes. I assume next month
  • 00:03:27
    the July minutes were posted. Were there any comments
  • 00:03:32
    on the on the minutes from the July meeting.
  • 00:03:37
    ERCOT, did y'all receive anything?
  • 00:03:40
    No? Okay. Like to see that added to the combo ballot.
  • 00:03:43
    Any concern or disagreement?
  • 00:03:46
    We will add that to the combo ballot. Next we have the
  • Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update - Eric Blakey
    00:03:50
    TAC update and I will just mention
  • 00:03:54
    a few things. It was the
  • 00:03:58
    stakeholder process is probably the biggest thing that was
  • 00:04:01
    discussed. Chairman Gleason at the commission had
  • 00:04:06
    made some statements a couple times about the improvements
  • 00:04:11
    that could be made to the stakeholder process. There was going to
  • 00:04:14
    be a TAC workshop on
  • 00:04:18
    the fifth that was canceled, and now that's going to be the first
  • 00:04:23
    thing brought up at the next TAC meeting on September 19.
  • 00:04:28
    And just for your calendars, if you haven't already changed,
  • 00:04:31
    the starting time will be 09:00 and the
  • 00:04:35
    first scheduling 2 hours.
  • 00:04:38
    We'll see how much time they really need, but the first
  • 00:04:42
    2 hours will be on stakeholder process.
  • 00:04:46
    We've added a agenda item
  • 00:04:50
    under item 15, so I'd like to save any discussion on
  • 00:04:53
    that until we get to item 15.
  • 00:04:58
    The other items I'd note was we had a WMS
  • 00:05:03
    report and it seemed to be well received,
  • 00:05:06
    but there were some comments. I just wanted to note that TAC
  • 00:05:10
    chair Caitlin Smith, she, she mentioned
  • 00:05:14
    appreciation for our work with the IMM and his
  • 00:05:20
    presentation to us last month on the state of the market
  • 00:05:24
    report. And I personally thought
  • 00:05:28
    that went really well and appreciated y'all's participation and
  • 00:05:31
    discussion with, with him on that.
  • 00:05:34
    And she also mentioned something about looking again
  • 00:05:38
    at our TAC assignments. And we can, we can talk
  • 00:05:41
    about that further when we get to item 15 and
  • 00:05:44
    the open action items. Anything other than those items that you all wanted
  • 00:05:48
    to mention from the TAC meeting.
  • Item 5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
    00:05:54
    All right, that's great. We are going to move on to item five
  • 00:05:59
    and ERCOT operations and market items first.
  • 00:06:02
    We have Luis Hinojosa on the proposed changes to ancillary service methodology
  • 00:06:06
    for 2025.
  • 00:06:20
    Good morning. Okay, thank you.
  • Item 5.1 - Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2025 - Vote - Luis Hinojosa
    00:06:23
    So I will be going through the proposed methodology for 2025.
  • 00:06:27
    Next slide, please. So this
  • 00:06:31
    will be a high level overview of the AS Methodology.
  • 00:06:34
    We did kick off this discussion in July with the working groups
  • 00:06:38
    to talk through the details and work through the proposed
  • 00:06:42
    methodology. I've provided links to all those discussions.
  • 00:06:46
    We did talk to ROS earlier this week. We will be going to TAC next
  • 00:06:50
    as well to take this AS Methodology. So this
  • 00:06:54
    slide in the next few is just again, high level overview of the AS Methodology
  • 00:06:58
    and the proposed quantities that will be, that were calculated.
  • 00:07:01
    I will go through the changes or proposed changes here that we have.
  • 00:07:05
    I'll start with regulation. The first change we are, we have a proposed
  • 00:07:09
    change for one for regulation service switching
  • 00:07:13
    to forecasted net load error that is used
  • 00:07:17
    seen by sched. This is a change from previously where
  • 00:07:20
    we use net load ramping and.
  • 00:07:24
    Sorry, can we go back one slide? No, you're fine.
  • 00:07:28
    So that is one change for regulation. Again, we've kind of
  • 00:07:32
    the background there is, we've made many changes to the generation two b dispatch application,
  • 00:07:36
    GTBD, which gives insights to sched for dispatch,
  • 00:07:39
    which we felt comfortable switching to the net load forecast error for accounting
  • 00:07:43
    for how much regulation we need. As we get into ERCOT,
  • 00:07:46
    there are three changes here. One is we removed the minimum
  • 00:07:51
    percentile of 90th percent for sunset hours.
  • 00:07:54
    Second one is we adjusted the frequency recovery portion
  • 00:07:58
    of accounting for historical load to be 70th percentile.
  • 00:08:02
    That matches with our RRS methodology. So we align those two together and
  • 00:08:06
    then the third one is probably the biggest one is as a
  • 00:08:09
    reminder, ECRS is used as a, for two purposes.
  • 00:08:12
    So we calculate a capacity for the frequency recover after
  • 00:08:16
    a unit trip. And then the other is capacity needed to cover net load ramping.
  • 00:08:21
    And we used to sum those two together. This year
  • 00:08:24
    we're proposing to take the maximum of either case and we'll show how that
  • 00:08:27
    affects the quantities over the hours. And then the
  • 00:08:31
    last one is non spin. We had one change. Here is for
  • 00:08:35
    the for 910 hours or hours ending 23 to zero six.
  • 00:08:38
    We computed a four hour net load forecast error in
  • 00:08:42
    those hours specifically and for all other hours. We remained
  • 00:08:45
    with the methodology we have today is 6 hours ahead. And the background
  • 00:08:49
    there is, we saw, we did some analysis and we saw that during those
  • 00:08:52
    hours, during those low peak hours, there was a lot of other capacity
  • 00:08:56
    that was sitting offline that could be available if it was needed for
  • 00:08:59
    any scenario that would have happened in real time. And for RRS,
  • 00:09:03
    there is no methodology change, but there is a change to
  • 00:09:07
    the IFRO, which then means that the minimum RSPFR
  • 00:09:11
    limit for 2025 is going to be 1,365. It was previously
  • 00:09:14
    1,185. Okay, next slide.
  • 00:09:17
    So now I'll go through the next few slides. It's going to show the quantities
  • 00:09:21
    for each as by month. I don't have the hourly data,
  • 00:09:25
    but posted with this is the as sheets which
  • 00:09:29
    does have the quantities by hour for every month. And it
  • 00:09:33
    shows data from January to July. We are currently
  • 00:09:36
    working on August data where we're going to have the updated data
  • 00:09:39
    for the TAC presentation next week. So the way you
  • 00:09:43
    read these is 2024 is in purple 2025
  • 00:09:46
    quantities. If the methodology had not changed, would be in gray.
  • 00:09:50
    And then the ERCOT blue is the 2025 proposed
  • 00:09:54
    with the changes that I mentioned in the introduction. And so what you'll see is
  • 00:09:57
    we stay about the same or just slightly above what we would have calculated last,
  • 00:10:02
    from last year, but it is a slight reduction of what the methodology would
  • 00:10:05
    have been had we might not propose to change. But again,
  • 00:10:09
    what we saw is, because of the changes we made in GTBD, we feel comfortable
  • 00:10:12
    with where the quantities landed. Now with the adjustment to net load forecast
  • 00:10:16
    error. Next slide.
  • 00:10:21
    This is ERCOTs, again, same structure, 2024,
  • 00:10:25
    2025 and 2025 proposed.
  • 00:10:28
    This here is what you're going to see, is you see the reduction
  • 00:10:32
    in ERCOTs quantities because we are taking the maximum of either capacity
  • 00:10:36
    rather than summing them up together. If you do look at the,
  • 00:10:40
    uh, the sheets that are posted and you start looking at some of the hourly
  • 00:10:44
    values, some of the details, there ends up being that sort of the
  • 00:10:48
    nighttime hours is where we lean on the frequency recovery portion and the daytime
  • 00:10:52
    hours when you are leaning more on
  • 00:10:55
    the net load forecast errors. And I think I saw a question fly by.
  • 00:10:59
    Did somebody have one? I didn't want to interrupt your flow.
  • 00:11:03
    I'll just take it at the end. It's about regulations. I don't want to go
  • 00:11:06
    backwards. Sure, sounds good. Thank you. Next slide.
  • 00:11:14
    Okay, this is non spin. Again, same structure.
  • 00:11:18
    One thing to note here is so in our proposed methodology,
  • 00:11:22
    we did move to the six hour head and four hour head net load forecast
  • 00:11:25
    errors. And the four hour head is mainly for the off peak hours. But what
  • 00:11:28
    you're going to see overall is it's very similar to what the proposed methodology
  • 00:11:32
    would have been. As you get into the hours, you see the small adjustments in
  • 00:11:35
    the nighttime hours where we are looking for that four hour end.
  • 00:11:40
    Next slide.
  • 00:11:44
    And then RRS. This is now just 2024 and
  • 00:11:47
    2025 just because there is no proposed methodology changes.
  • 00:11:51
    And what you're going to see is the quantities are very similar for each
  • 00:11:55
    month here as the methodology did not change. And this is now basically
  • 00:11:59
    update to the IFRO and the updated inertia
  • 00:12:04
    based on previous years. One more slide.
  • 00:12:10
    Okay, so just an overview. Covered all the changes that we have today.
  • 00:12:14
    We're not making any propositions to RRS. I have attached the
  • 00:12:17
    sheets and a redline AS Methodology document to
  • 00:12:21
    cover the proposed changes as well. And as of today,
  • 00:12:24
    we're here today to seek endorsement for the AS methodology for 2025.
  • 00:12:29
    But I see a few questions and some in the. Yeah, we have a
  • 00:12:32
    couple in the queue. Let's go to Bryan Sam's first.
  • 00:12:35
    Okay, my question's about regulation.
  • 00:12:39
    When we looked at the hourly data, it seemed like
  • 00:12:43
    in the winter you might be procuring less in the morning
  • 00:12:47
    than you were in the past. And that just felt
  • 00:12:52
    more risky to us and hoped you could unpack that a little bit.
  • 00:12:56
    When you say less, is it regulation up or regulation down?
  • 00:12:59
    Up. So one thing, again,
  • 00:13:03
    so the driving factors for a lot of the quantities, at least here,
  • 00:13:06
    is the Netlib forecast there. But one thing that I'll say that
  • 00:13:10
    we've made an adjustment. We talked about this in the working groups. Some of those
  • 00:13:13
    detailed presentations is we've made a lot of adjustments to GTBD and
  • 00:13:17
    that's to help SCAD dispatch based on forecasts.
  • 00:13:21
    So we input wind forecasts, load forecasts to help SCAD make
  • 00:13:25
    decisions on where dispatch should be going based on
  • 00:13:29
    IRR ramping. And additionally we continue
  • 00:13:33
    to tweak that. We've gotten really aggressive with our PSRR or the
  • 00:13:37
    solar forecast adjustment that we do there. And what we've seen
  • 00:13:41
    since we've done switched to a dynamic PSRR is
  • 00:13:44
    it's actually reduced the amount of regulation exhaustion we are seeing in
  • 00:13:48
    those hours during sunset and sunrise hours. And it's actually reducing
  • 00:13:53
    the operator actions that need to be taken outside of just your normal scan
  • 00:13:57
    operations. So again,
  • 00:14:00
    with the data that we had, we were seeing the reduction.
  • 00:14:03
    Now, if we didn't make that change in the gray bars some
  • 00:14:06
    of those hours, you see, you would get really high towering
  • 00:14:10
    bars because we were just looking at pure ramping. But knowing
  • 00:14:14
    that we have inputs to GTBD to account for some of that,
  • 00:14:17
    that's why you see the reduction. Hopefully that helps.
  • 00:14:20
    But if you need more details, I might follow up. I mean, I think
  • 00:14:24
    the reduction we were seeing is kind of before sunrise.
  • 00:14:28
    So that was just something we.
  • 00:14:31
    I'm sorry for bringing this up at WMS. Probably more of a ROS conversation,
  • 00:14:34
    but. Okay. Nitika, did you have something you wanted to
  • 00:14:38
    add to that or. Okay,
  • 00:14:41
    Bill, this is a kind of a combo
  • 00:14:45
    question related to this RTC+B
  • 00:14:48
    and also the as study. The IMM
  • 00:14:52
    had proposed a nesting concept between non spin
  • 00:14:55
    and ECRS. I'm just wondering if that's being considered
  • 00:15:01
    for future ancillary service methodology changes and
  • 00:15:05
    just haven't really heard much about that idea after
  • 00:15:09
    it was proposed. I'm just kind of wondering if that's being considered or
  • 00:15:12
    we'll be able to see more details on how that actually works and if it's
  • 00:15:15
    being potentially incorporated. So the as
  • 00:15:19
    study that we're working on now,
  • 00:15:22
    we're not incorporating direct changes from that study now. It's not complete
  • 00:15:26
    yet. We are working on having that out sometime
  • 00:15:30
    later. But some of those discussions that we've been having
  • 00:15:33
    continuously with the IMM has, you know, give us some insights on things that
  • 00:15:37
    we can look at and adjust on. And that's kind of where some of the
  • 00:15:40
    proposed methodology changes you see now is something like the ECRS is looking
  • 00:15:44
    at the maximum rather than the combined. And that kind of driver was
  • 00:15:48
    there is the probability of having a net load ramping plus a unit trip was
  • 00:15:52
    very low. So they're not direct implementations
  • 00:15:56
    of findings of any of this study yet, but we're still
  • 00:15:59
    looking at changes or those results to
  • 00:16:03
    see how that changed future as methodologies.
  • 00:16:07
    Okay, we have a comment from Nabaraj.
  • 00:16:10
    Nabaraj, you're up. Sure.
  • 00:16:14
    Thank you. So first of all, thank you
  • 00:16:18
    very much, ERCOT staff, for working hard
  • 00:16:22
    on this important topic. And I also like to
  • 00:16:26
    thank you very much for the IMM staff that they proposed
  • 00:16:30
    on the plan in the last tag meeting.
  • 00:16:35
    So we are generally supportive of ERCOT program proposed
  • 00:16:39
    plan this time. And one thing I
  • 00:16:43
    just want to say of short comment is that
  • 00:16:48
    the changes, I mean, presented during the tag,
  • 00:16:53
    this should be, you know, best taken
  • 00:16:57
    in the policy setting at PUC rather
  • 00:17:01
    than the just a technical setting at ERCOT. Right.
  • 00:17:04
    So I think that best works for us. And we
  • 00:17:09
    hope that PUC takes IMMs
  • 00:17:13
    is in their heart in making changes in ancillary service
  • 00:17:17
    moving forward. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:17:21
    Now, bros, any other
  • 00:17:25
    questions or comments?
  • 00:17:29
    Yes, Bryan. All right, can you go
  • 00:17:33
    over again the change to the
  • 00:17:37
    ECRS, the change to the frequency recovery portion,
  • 00:17:41
    and why you chose 70% versus something else?
  • 00:17:46
    So today. So it was 60th percentile
  • 00:17:50
    previously is what we were using. Again, when we were combining both,
  • 00:17:54
    we chose 70th percentile to align with the RRS methodology.
  • 00:17:58
    We are using the 70th percentile of inertia to
  • 00:18:02
    account for those hours. So we really wanted to align there.
  • 00:18:05
    And what that does is it, it does slightly bump the frequency
  • 00:18:09
    recovery value. And since
  • 00:18:12
    we were going to be choosing either or, we wanted to
  • 00:18:16
    just have that extra little bump of megawatts to cover the 70th and in
  • 00:18:19
    line with the RRS, just in case either of those was selected.
  • 00:18:27
    Still a net reduction though. Yes.
  • 00:18:32
    Less conservative, I guess, than what you've been doing in the past.
  • 00:18:38
    Yes.
  • 00:18:42
    Okay. Any other questions or comments?
  • 00:18:50
    Ian, mister chair, I'm just
  • 00:18:53
    going to ask for an individual ballot on this one. I expressed
  • 00:18:57
    concerns at ROS previously about how the ERCOT
  • 00:19:02
    analysis and decisions now contemplate
  • 00:19:06
    the potential regular use of RUC in the
  • 00:19:10
    off peak hours. Completely understand ERCOT's
  • 00:19:14
    desire to manage both sides of the as equilibrium,
  • 00:19:18
    but I would like to abstain. Very good.
  • 00:19:24
    Do we have a motion to.
  • 00:19:28
    Is it approve or recommend,
  • 00:19:30
    endorse the proposed changes in
  • 00:19:34
    ancillary service methodology for 2025.
  • 00:19:38
    Have a motion. Bill, you have a second nabaraj
  • 00:19:48
    in the queue. Thank you. Any discussion on
  • 00:19:51
    the motion? If not, I'll turn it over to Brittany for the vote.
  • 00:19:54
    Thanks.
  • 00:20:00
    Thank you,
  • 00:20:01
    Eriche.
  • 00:20:08
    All right, this is the individual ballot with the motion to
  • 00:20:12
    endorse the proposed changes to the ancillary service methodology for 2025
  • 00:20:17
    as submitted by ERCOT staff.
  • 00:20:26
    And we will begin with Nabaraj.
  • 00:20:30
    Yes. Thank you,
  • 00:20:36
    Mark. Abstain.
  • 00:20:43
    Preeti? Yes. I'm sorry,
  • 00:20:46
    I did not hear that.
  • 00:20:53
    Yes. Okay, thank you.
  • 00:21:01
    And Rick. Yes. Thank you.
  • 00:21:06
    Moving on to the cooperative segment. Trevor. For Blake.
  • 00:21:10
    Yes. Thank you. Lucas.
  • 00:21:13
    Yes. Thank you.
  • 00:21:17
    Eric? Yes. Thank you. And Jim.
  • 00:21:20
    Yes. Thank you, Brittany.
  • 00:21:25
    Independent generators. Theresa.
  • 00:21:28
    Abstain.
  • 00:21:31
    Tom. Abstain.
  • 00:21:38
    Andy? Abstain. Thanks. Brittany. And
  • 00:21:42
    Bryan? Abstain. Thank you.
  • 00:21:48
    Thank you. Independent power marketers.
  • 00:21:52
    Shane. For Reshmi.
  • 00:21:55
    Yes. Thank you. Amanda. Yes.
  • 00:21:59
    Thank you. Robert.
  • 00:22:06
    See, make sure Robert's on the call.
  • 00:22:16
    I don't. I don't see. Robert signed in.
  • 00:22:20
    And Ian. Abstain. Thank you. Brittany. Thank you.
  • 00:22:32
    Independent retail electric providers. Bill.
  • 00:22:35
    Yes. Bill. For Anoush. Yes.
  • 00:22:40
    Joshua. Abstain.
  • 00:22:47
    And Amir? Yes. Thank you.
  • 00:22:54
    Investor owned utilities. David? Yes.
  • 00:22:58
    Ivan? Yes.
  • 00:23:02
    Jim.
  • 00:23:06
    Jim, I see youre. Yes. In the
  • 00:23:09
    chat. Thank you. And Rob. For Vincent.
  • 00:23:12
    Yes. Thank you all.
  • 00:23:15
    Finally, municipal segment. David?
  • 00:23:19
    Yes. Ken?
  • 00:23:23
    Yes. Curtis.
  • 00:23:26
    Yes. And Faye? Yes.
  • 00:23:30
    Thank you. Thank you.
  • 00:23:34
    It's doing its little trick where it won't save. Hold on
  • 00:23:38
    a second.
  • 00:24:07
    I know the motion has carried. However, I would like to display it for you
  • 00:24:11
    all of late.
  • 00:24:15
    Sometimes the ballot is not tallying because I
  • 00:24:19
    cannot enable macros if
  • 00:24:23
    I'd like to. The motion has carried, but I'd like to show
  • 00:24:28
    you at length. I don't know. We can bring that up.
  • 00:24:32
    Six abstentions, the rest were yeses, right? That's correct.
  • 00:24:35
    Okay, very good. Well, thank you all.
  • 00:24:39
    Let's. Let's move on to the next item, which is
  • 00:24:42
    congestion revenue. Right. Auction mitigation. And we have
  • 00:24:45
    this as a possible vote. And Samantha Findley.
  • 00:24:49
    Yeah. And that was updated to be a not voting item for today.
  • 00:24:52
    So that's online. What you printed out a few days ago may not match
  • 00:24:55
    what's on the screen? And just to tee this up.
  • 00:24:58
    So I shared at TAC a congestion
  • 00:25:02
    revenue rights performance issue that we've been experiencing. It's where, as we get into
  • 00:25:05
    these later auctions, where the model gets smaller and
  • 00:25:09
    smaller. For the out years, we have observed significant performance
  • 00:25:13
    issues and that we may take some mitigation actions
  • 00:25:17
    if needed to preserve the integrity of getting a solution.
  • 00:25:20
    So we said that we will go discuss this with WMS, that today's educational,
  • 00:25:25
    and we are actually running some studies right now before the next
  • 00:25:28
    auction to see if we go to TAC and say, warning, we need
  • 00:25:31
    to mitigate or continue on. So, this is kind of an educational
  • 00:25:35
    thing. I'll leave it to the chair. This could quickly turn into a miniature CMWG
  • 00:25:39
    meeting about all the ways that we could improve the CR
  • 00:25:43
    auction. So I just wanted to say, you have the right to
  • 00:25:46
    curtail as needed, Eric. To move this to CMWG,
  • 00:25:49
    maybe? Well, no, we will go to CMWG.
  • 00:25:52
    There just wasn't one between now and TAC. Gotcha. So you're our guys.
  • 00:25:55
    So I showed up to say, hey, we're going to pull back the curtain,
  • 00:25:58
    show you the trends and concerns, what our
  • 00:26:02
    mitigation option is that's not pretty. To survive
  • 00:26:05
    this and to address it going forward. Gotcha.
  • 00:26:08
    So, okay, let's have some discussion. Ian,
  • 00:26:12
    I'm sorry. So, I just wanted to frame it and let Samantha do her thing
  • 00:26:15
    in five minutes. But five minute spiel may turn into an
  • 00:26:19
    hour if people want to dive into all the pieces part. So I'd love for
  • 00:26:21
    her to open up the five slides. I gotcha. And then roll it. We got
  • 00:26:24
    this very coordinated. So, yeah, we'll let Samantha do her
  • 00:26:28
    part, and then we'll get into questions. Samantha proceeds.
  • 00:26:32
    She's been on our team for eight years. She's been the supervisor for the past
  • 00:26:35
    couple years, knows this stuff inside and out. So, Samantha, you have the floor.
  • Item 5.2 - Congestion Revenue Rights Auction Mitigation - Samantha Findley
    00:26:40
    Thanks, y'all. Good morning. This is Samantha Findley with ERCOT
  • 00:26:43
    Sierra market operations. So, as Matt
  • 00:26:47
    was talking about, we've been
  • 00:26:50
    seeing performance issues, especially in our long
  • 00:26:54
    term auctions. Those are the six month auctions
  • 00:26:57
    that take place that go out as far as three years
  • 00:27:00
    out in time. So, this slide is focused on
  • 00:27:04
    showing you all the increases in the variables
  • 00:27:08
    that are going into our optimizations. So, the settlement
  • 00:27:12
    points, registered Sierra account holders,
  • 00:27:15
    and registered counterparties with CRA account holders.
  • 00:27:19
    As you can see, tremendous growth
  • 00:27:23
    continues. What we're showing is just since
  • 00:27:27
    back in 2016 to now,
  • 00:27:30
    and the increases in
  • 00:27:34
    all of these variables are adding
  • 00:27:39
    more constraints and limitations on our optimization.
  • 00:27:44
    So of course, the more CRR accountholders that
  • 00:27:47
    are registered and participating, the more submitted
  • 00:27:51
    transactions there are, the more settlement
  • 00:27:54
    points there are, the more possible paths
  • 00:27:57
    there are for CRRs. So all of these things combined
  • 00:28:02
    are really putting a lot of pressure on the long term
  • 00:28:06
    auction optimization
  • 00:28:10
    performance, especially for those that
  • 00:28:13
    are in the out years. The sequence four, five and
  • 00:28:17
    six that only allow 1020 and 30%
  • 00:28:21
    of the model of capacity.
  • 00:28:24
    Just want to point out a little detail here that
  • 00:28:28
    the reduction in settlement points that you see from 2020
  • 00:28:32
    to 2021 was due to a
  • 00:28:35
    reclassification of some pun resource nodes as
  • 00:28:39
    non biddable. But as you can see, after that,
  • 00:28:43
    they are continuing to increase quite a bit
  • 00:28:47
    every year. Next slide, please.
  • 00:28:55
    All right, so with this visual, we wanted to share
  • 00:28:59
    the historical performance. This is recent historical
  • 00:29:03
    performance of specifically
  • 00:29:06
    the peak weekday time of use
  • 00:29:10
    optimizations for our long term auction sequences.
  • 00:29:15
    So the right of the graph is depicting our most
  • 00:29:18
    recent sequence five and then going backward
  • 00:29:22
    in time to the left. So you can see
  • 00:29:26
    the the most recent
  • 00:29:29
    sequence six auction that took place in March of this year.
  • 00:29:33
    Although it had a total transaction count of
  • 00:29:36
    306,000, it took
  • 00:29:40
    363 hours to converge
  • 00:29:43
    on a solution. So that specific
  • 00:29:47
    auction is the one where we
  • 00:29:51
    posted results several days after the
  • 00:29:55
    posting date in the CRR activity calendar.
  • 00:29:59
    This is exactly the scenario that we are trying
  • 00:30:02
    to mitigate and what we want to bring up
  • 00:30:06
    in today's WMS and share with
  • 00:30:10
    TAC next week as well. So because
  • 00:30:14
    next week we have the very next sequence
  • 00:30:18
    six auction, we want to talk about
  • 00:30:22
    the ways that we intend to mitigate the
  • 00:30:26
    risk of this outlier performance,
  • 00:30:31
    and also what we can do in the short term that's
  • 00:30:35
    available to us to mitigate that risk as well.
  • 00:30:40
    Next slide, please.
  • 00:30:47
    Okay, so for medium and long term,
  • 00:30:51
    we're looking at the following market design changes
  • 00:30:55
    to increase liquidity and improve performance.
  • 00:30:58
    So in the medium term, we're looking at studying
  • 00:31:02
    and setting lower per Sierra account holder limits.
  • 00:31:06
    Just as a reminder, currently the long term
  • 00:31:10
    per account holder limit is set to 4000.
  • 00:31:15
    And just a side note here, NPRR936,
  • 00:31:19
    which removes the limit of the number of CRR account holders.
  • 00:31:25
    After implementation of that approved NPRR,
  • 00:31:29
    the transaction limits will be moved from CRR account
  • 00:31:32
    holder to counterparty. So that is just a side note.
  • 00:31:36
    But that is one of the first things that we're looking at is
  • 00:31:40
    simply lowering the per account holder limits
  • 00:31:44
    from 4000 to something less than that.
  • 00:31:47
    The second thing we're looking at is increasing an
  • 00:31:51
    increase to the minimum option bid price with TAC approval.
  • 00:31:55
    So currently the minimum option bid price is defined in section
  • 00:31:58
    two as one penny, and we would like to change
  • 00:32:02
    that to that definition to
  • 00:32:06
    be with TAC approval. That change would need an
  • 00:32:10
    NPRR but not a system change, because the
  • 00:32:13
    minimum option bid price is something that we can manage within
  • 00:32:17
    the software itself in
  • 00:32:21
    the long term. Some of the things that we're looking
  • 00:32:24
    at are the removal of the multi month bid functionality
  • 00:32:29
    for the long term auctions to reduce constraints on
  • 00:32:32
    the optimization. That one will require an
  • 00:32:36
    NPRR and a system change. That's a pretty big change for
  • 00:32:39
    the long term auction sequence auctions, and we believe
  • 00:32:44
    that this is removing the constraints of
  • 00:32:48
    the multi month bids. Having to be optimized over six
  • 00:32:51
    individual monthly models within the
  • 00:32:56
    six month auctions will give
  • 00:32:59
    us a good improvement in the
  • 00:33:02
    optimization performance.
  • 00:33:06
    In particular, having to optimize options
  • 00:33:11
    over multi months in the long term auctions and
  • 00:33:15
    using a separate and distinct network model
  • 00:33:18
    for each one of those months is very stressing for the optimization.
  • 00:33:25
    The second thing in the long term we're looking at is modifying the capacity
  • 00:33:29
    percentages for the long term auctions,
  • 00:33:32
    so increasing the amount of capacity
  • 00:33:36
    that we're making available in sequences six,
  • 00:33:40
    five and four. In particular, sequence six
  • 00:33:44
    obviously is in recent run times,
  • 00:33:48
    has being impacted the most.
  • 00:33:53
    And then finally we're considering also along with in the
  • 00:33:57
    medium term setting and lowering those per account holder limits,
  • 00:34:01
    it might be appropriate to set even
  • 00:34:05
    lower per account holder limits for those sequence
  • 00:34:09
    four through six auctions that are the furthest out in time,
  • 00:34:13
    the last one and a half years in that three year forward
  • 00:34:17
    look. All right,
  • 00:34:20
    next slide please.
  • 00:34:26
    So the short term mitigation that we have and
  • 00:34:30
    that we want to make everyone
  • 00:34:34
    aware of for the upcoming long term auction sequence
  • 00:34:37
    auctions has to do with the
  • 00:34:42
    extremely long solution times for the recent sequence
  • 00:34:46
    four through six auctions, especially when the peak weekday
  • 00:34:50
    transactions exceed certain thresholds. So in
  • 00:34:54
    the long term auction sequences,
  • 00:34:57
    each TOU is optimized separately as its
  • 00:35:00
    own auction.
  • 00:35:05
    And peak weekday is also the most
  • 00:35:09
    popular tou. So there isn't anything
  • 00:35:13
    to keep market participants from submitting the majority
  • 00:35:17
    of their bids into peak weekday. And it is,
  • 00:35:20
    it definitely receives the most transactions.
  • 00:35:23
    So with that in mind,
  • 00:35:28
    also LTAs auctions with higher capacity percentages
  • 00:35:33
    like the sequence one, two and three
  • 00:35:36
    auctions, they tend to allow more transactions
  • 00:35:40
    than the lower capacity sequence auctions. And that's just simply
  • 00:35:44
    by the nature of having more room
  • 00:35:48
    for that's available for the optimization.
  • 00:35:54
    Since the implementation of SCR807
  • 00:35:58
    in December of 2023, that SCR changed
  • 00:36:02
    our TAC approved auction transaction
  • 00:36:06
    limit, the total auction transaction limit,
  • 00:36:10
    from 300,000 to 400,000.
  • 00:36:14
    It increased the transaction limit.
  • 00:36:18
    And since that change, an additional per
  • 00:36:21
    TOU parameter has been introduced to our software
  • 00:36:26
    that we can use to further limit transactions in
  • 00:36:29
    addition to the total auction transaction limit.
  • 00:36:33
    So that is what the
  • 00:36:36
    short term mitigation looks like for us. So ERCOT
  • 00:36:41
    may need to enforce that per
  • 00:36:44
    TOU limit, which effectively would mean
  • 00:36:48
    taking the 400,000 total transaction limit and
  • 00:36:52
    dividing it by three TOUa to be at
  • 00:36:55
    a minimum 133.3k
  • 00:36:59
    transactions per TOU. So if
  • 00:37:03
    we set that per TOU limit,
  • 00:37:08
    if it is exceeded, it will invoke a transaction
  • 00:37:12
    adjustment period to ensure that the auction will solve timely.
  • 00:37:18
    Just want to note that ERCOT may need to enforce this
  • 00:37:22
    new per TOU limit for the upcoming
  • 00:37:26
    sequence six that closes next week on September 19.
  • 00:37:31
    And ERCOT will sponsor an NPRR to codify the
  • 00:37:35
    the use of this TOU limit.
  • 00:37:38
    And the way it works is if either the total auction limit,
  • 00:37:43
    the 400,000 plus, or the per TOU
  • 00:37:47
    limit, which would be the total auction limit divided
  • 00:37:51
    by three, are exceeded, a TAP,
  • 00:37:55
    a transaction adjustment period will be invoked.
  • 00:37:59
    And if a TAP is invoked, an automated message will be
  • 00:38:03
    posted to the CRR market user interface messages
  • 00:38:08
    page. We also want
  • 00:38:12
    to make sure that everyone is aware, not just
  • 00:38:16
    folks that are looking at the messages page. So we will also send
  • 00:38:20
    a market notice within 1 hour of the auction close
  • 00:38:24
    if a transaction adjustment period is invoked.
  • 00:38:29
    Next slide, please.
  • 00:38:35
    So, we had a suggestion to
  • 00:38:39
    go over what those transaction limits would look like
  • 00:38:43
    if we have a transaction adjustment period.
  • 00:38:46
    And just a side note, we did have
  • 00:38:49
    transaction adjustment periods for the most recent
  • 00:38:53
    sequence one and two auctions that were shown on a
  • 00:38:57
    previous slide. So you can see that transaction adjustment
  • 00:39:01
    periods result in a lower number of overall
  • 00:39:05
    transactions. And the reason for that is
  • 00:39:10
    when a transaction adjustment period is invoked,
  • 00:39:13
    that the total number of transactions
  • 00:39:17
    is divided by the number of participating
  • 00:39:23
    account holders. But we don't know at the time that
  • 00:39:27
    we send the market notice. This slide is showing the market notice
  • 00:39:31
    for the sequence six auction that closes next week. That notice
  • 00:39:35
    date was August 28. And so what we are reporting
  • 00:39:39
    in the market notices ahead of the auction is
  • 00:39:43
    a preliminary transaction adjustment period limit
  • 00:39:46
    per account holder. And I,
  • 00:39:49
    we'll go to the next slide and I'll talk about how that is calculated.
  • 00:39:56
    So, in the market notice,
  • 00:39:59
    you noticed that the per account holder
  • 00:40:04
    preliminary limit is 915 transactions,
  • 00:40:08
    and that is derived by taking the 400,000 transaction
  • 00:40:12
    limit, subtracting the number of grouped baseload CRRs,
  • 00:40:17
    and for sequence six auctions, the only CRRs
  • 00:40:21
    in baseload are PCRs. So it's a very small
  • 00:40:25
    number of them. If you divide that by the
  • 00:40:29
    number of qualified CRR account holders,
  • 00:40:32
    which is currently 436, you get to the
  • 00:40:35
    915 that we reported in the market notice.
  • 00:40:40
    The reason that we have to use qualified CRR account holders and not
  • 00:40:44
    participating account holders for the market notice
  • 00:40:48
    is because the number of participating account holders is
  • 00:40:51
    actually taken at the close of
  • 00:40:55
    the bid window. So participating account holders,
  • 00:41:00
    as noted in the footnote here, are those that either own
  • 00:41:03
    CRRs in baseload for the auction period or
  • 00:41:08
    their counterparty has locked credit for the auction. And the credit
  • 00:41:11
    lock currently happens at 05:00
  • 00:41:15
    of the bid window close, the same time as the bid window close.
  • 00:41:19
    So we don't know the number of participating account
  • 00:41:22
    holders until 05:00 on the bid window close day.
  • 00:41:26
    So I wanted to give some
  • 00:41:30
    more data about what that could look like for sequence six
  • 00:41:34
    and for future long term auctions. So for the
  • 00:41:38
    sequence six that was held in March, this past, this most
  • 00:41:42
    recent sequence six auction, if there was a transaction adjustment
  • 00:41:46
    period held for that auction,
  • 00:41:49
    the number of transactions available per account holder
  • 00:41:53
    would have been 1857,
  • 00:41:56
    based on the number of participating account holders for that auction.
  • 00:42:00
    And as you can see, the baseload is very similar from the
  • 00:42:04
    current sequence six to the last sequence six.
  • 00:42:09
    So the denominator is really what is
  • 00:42:13
    unknown at this point. We can't guarantee that it would be
  • 00:42:17
    215. If you take
  • 00:42:20
    a look at the data in the appendix I
  • 00:42:24
    provided, the last,
  • 00:42:27
    I want to say one and a half years, at least
  • 00:42:31
    the last couple of long term auction sequence data
  • 00:42:36
    to show what the group baseload and the participating
  • 00:42:40
    CRR account holders were for each of those auctions. So you
  • 00:42:43
    can see, if you go to the next slide,
  • 00:42:47
    what the,
  • 00:42:51
    you can kind of see historically what the group baseload and participating
  • 00:42:55
    account holders have been for each one of those auctions.
  • 00:42:59
    And so that's starting with, and the reason I have the
  • 00:43:03
    results published date is just to give you a relative date of
  • 00:43:07
    the time periods that these auctions took
  • 00:43:10
    place. So starting with the most recent at the top
  • 00:43:14
    and working back in time to the bottom.
  • 00:43:20
    So that is what I have to share today.
  • 00:43:23
    And we'll take any questions. Okay, thank you,
  • 00:43:27
    Samantha. We have. Can I button it up real quick before we open it up
  • 00:43:30
    to questions? Because I want to. Samantha has given us a great walkthrough of
  • 00:43:34
    what the problem is. We've gotten into a lot of different paths down
  • 00:43:37
    that, but I wanted to kind of crystallize the concept.
  • 00:43:41
    We've had this slide here is the increase in settlement
  • 00:43:45
    points. CRR account holders and it's starting to oversubscribe.
  • 00:43:49
    And what we as operators are seeing is the next slide is a
  • 00:43:53
    hockey stick of performance risk that we can't mitigate.
  • 00:43:57
    And so all we have in protocols is a 400,000 limit.
  • 00:44:01
    But we have that 400,000 limit. But we
  • 00:44:04
    can't help it if everyone runs to the peak weekday and bids
  • 00:44:07
    on that thing and then we're stuck with too many on that,
  • 00:44:11
    on a 10% auction and we're in the ditch. So we
  • 00:44:14
    can, we can do a monthly auction in hours.
  • 00:44:17
    We can do some of these, but we got down to that red dot on
  • 00:44:21
    top is what we don't want to have again. Or worse. That 363
  • 00:44:24
    hours is two weeks of a solution. It encroached on the monthly
  • 00:44:28
    auction. So we have an option at that point is throw it
  • 00:44:31
    in the trash and run the monthly auction, say well, we'll get it on the
  • 00:44:35
    next one. Or we get a whole other set of software
  • 00:44:38
    in parallel hardware in parallel to it. And we run a monthly auction
  • 00:44:42
    in parallel with the long term auction sequence and just
  • 00:44:46
    wait for it to run another two weeks or we mitigate this thing.
  • 00:44:49
    And so that's why I'm coming in kind of in this. I'm sorry that we
  • 00:44:53
    are where we are, but over the last six months we've thrown
  • 00:44:57
    two performance patches at it. We're up to 28 cpu's.
  • 00:45:00
    We're running an auction right now to see if we can make it through this
  • 00:45:03
    next auction. And if we don't like the results that we see at TAC,
  • 00:45:07
    we may have to invoke what was on this last slide before the
  • 00:45:10
    appendix, which is we may take that 400,000 bid limit,
  • 00:45:14
    acknowledges what's in protocols, but what's not in protocols is have a
  • 00:45:18
    secondary constraint behind it that says any time of use
  • 00:45:22
    over 133,000, we're going to have to kick in the adjustment period
  • 00:45:26
    because we want to survive the auction.
  • 00:45:29
    Again. We are proud of the liquidity, we're proud
  • 00:45:32
    of how we've been able to keep these things evolving where
  • 00:45:37
    we can. But I just want to say that's the immediate
  • 00:45:40
    mitigation. The next mitigation was. Okay,
  • 00:45:44
    so this is a brute force method. How do we limit
  • 00:45:48
    the overall CRR account holder by auction?
  • 00:45:50
    Thats what were looking at the administrative side in the midterm,
  • 00:45:54
    then the longer term. Is there a way to put a market solution in place?
  • 00:45:57
    Its a minimum of a 25 cent bid. All of
  • 00:46:01
    a sudden we let credit start to adjust and from a market demand
  • 00:46:04
    side, throttle these bids back. But again, were throwing
  • 00:46:08
    everything we can at it. Were losing sleep at night over this.
  • 00:46:12
    We just wanted to make you aware of it and what we might need to
  • 00:46:15
    do to mitigate that. So I'll throw it open for questions. Sorry to interrupt.
  • 00:46:18
    No, thank you, Matt. And just as a reminder
  • 00:46:23
    for me, I had it as a possible vote. It's not a possible vote.
  • 00:46:27
    We took that off the agenda. So just keep
  • 00:46:30
    that in mind as we discuss this. We have a
  • 00:46:33
    bit of a queue. Ian, did you want to go first? You want to go
  • 00:46:36
    last? No, it's your discretion.
  • 00:46:40
    Okay. I want to thank
  • 00:46:44
    ERCOT for the continued work on this. My thoughts
  • 00:46:47
    on this, though, are a little bit higher level. I'm afraid
  • 00:46:51
    that this is almost the canary in the coal mine, that the changing topology
  • 00:46:55
    and changes to the ERCOT market are
  • 00:47:00
    going to outpace the ERCOT systems.
  • 00:47:04
    I'm wondering if the ERCOT systems were built for what we
  • 00:47:08
    knew the market ten years ago, 20 years ago, where we had a lot
  • 00:47:12
    of large plants and not a lot of
  • 00:47:16
    smaller plants, where we had a lot less lines
  • 00:47:20
    and we had a lot less individual entities participating
  • 00:47:24
    in these. So I would appreciate
  • 00:47:28
    if we, as stakeholders, could come together at a time and
  • 00:47:32
    as may be appropriate, since Matt is here during
  • 00:47:37
    the kind of shutdown for RTC or
  • 00:47:43
    some other time, where we can come and take a
  • 00:47:46
    look at this and see if we can work with ERCOT to figure out
  • 00:47:50
    what other systems could be impacted and try and get ahead of those,
  • 00:47:54
    rather than run into these problems. Onesies,
  • 00:47:57
    twosies down the line. So it's something I plan on
  • 00:48:00
    bringing up at TAC as well, mister chair. But if you prefer
  • 00:48:04
    to bring it up, I defer to you. Thank you.
  • 00:48:08
    And I will offer that we're not pins down on the CRR team. Ironically,
  • 00:48:12
    it's the one team not touched by RTC. The CRs are sold off
  • 00:48:16
    the settlement points and it's the one market not changing so we can engage
  • 00:48:19
    in studies. So I guess, as you mentioned, kind of going dark
  • 00:48:24
    on new ideas or implementations. This is an era we can continue
  • 00:48:27
    to press into. So that's okay. Absolutely. And sorry, Matt, I should
  • 00:48:30
    be more clear. My thought is, as we're going dark on other things, take that
  • 00:48:34
    time to look at the other parts of the ERCOT systems.
  • 00:48:37
    So not just the CRR team, but look at the other
  • 00:48:41
    parts of the ERCOT system that could be impacted by
  • 00:48:45
    this changing way the markets kind of
  • 00:48:48
    being shaped up these days. Okay, makes sense. Thank you.
  • 00:48:52
    Alex Miller. Hi.
  • 00:48:55
    I should have just jumped in at the beginning. It was just an overall comment
  • 00:48:59
    that this was. There was a little confusion earlier.
  • 00:49:02
    We have been discussing this at CMWG regularly.
  • 00:49:05
    We appreciate Samantha bringing all this information
  • 00:49:08
    to the group. And as they mentioned, it was
  • 00:49:12
    just a timing issue of wanting to make sure that WMS had
  • 00:49:16
    the full picture. We've been giving our updates, but. And this
  • 00:49:20
    additional information with these graphs, I think is particularly
  • 00:49:23
    enlightening of what the. Of what's going on before.
  • 00:49:27
    Before taxis. It wanted to make sure WMS saw it.
  • 00:49:31
    Okay. Thank you, Bill. My question
  • 00:49:36
    slash comment was on slide three,
  • 00:49:40
    which are the trends, which is very interesting. Thanks for
  • 00:49:44
    bringing that forward. I think the
  • 00:49:48
    increase in CRR account holders and obviously the CPs
  • 00:49:52
    necessary for them isn't really that surprising.
  • 00:49:55
    With the increase in competing power and AI, I think we're going to see more
  • 00:49:59
    and more of that which my
  • 00:50:03
    son would describe as chasing that bag. That's not going to stop.
  • 00:50:07
    The increase in settlement points is
  • 00:50:11
    what's interesting to me. That is not fully expected.
  • 00:50:15
    I know we've added a lot of generators in
  • 00:50:19
    the last ten years, but I'm wondering how much of that is, to Ian's point,
  • 00:50:23
    related to increasing dgrs and
  • 00:50:28
    things like that. So that's one I think we're watching.
  • 00:50:31
    I'm supportive of ERCOT's proposed solutions and
  • 00:50:36
    remedies to this. I do think anything
  • 00:50:41
    that we do structurally or transactionally, we're inevitably going to
  • 00:50:44
    continue to bump up on the limits because of what you see on
  • 00:50:48
    the right hand slide. Right. So I
  • 00:50:52
    think there's really only one way the long term solution that will eventually get this
  • 00:50:56
    back into balance, and that is to increase the cost of participating. That's really
  • 00:51:00
    the only reasonable brake pedal in the long term, I think,
  • 00:51:03
    and I know that's part of your solution
  • 00:51:07
    with the option bid price. And I do agree, if we
  • 00:51:11
    go that route, we want to slowly apply
  • 00:51:15
    pressure and try to find the right balance where we still have significant
  • 00:51:19
    liquidity. We don't make it too expensive to participate because
  • 00:51:23
    there is a lot of value of having, you know, that much
  • 00:51:26
    participation in these auctions, so that you do get liquidity and
  • 00:51:31
    price discovery, which is important. So thanks.
  • 00:51:34
    Thank you, Bill. Seth, I have
  • 00:51:39
    more than a few questions, but the first one is on the next slide
  • 00:51:45
    one where you had the council. Yeah. So when you had that 363 day,
  • 00:51:50
    was that just a single run, or did you have to stop a run,
  • 00:51:52
    make some changes, and kick it off again? That was a single run. Start to
  • 00:51:56
    stop. Okay. Glad it finished right. If we had to start it over again,
  • 00:51:59
    it would have been another two weeks. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
  • 00:52:02
    And my overall, an overall question is what, what is the
  • 00:52:06
    impediment here? Is it the optimization itself or
  • 00:52:09
    is it ERCOT's downstream systems?
  • 00:52:13
    Once the optimal, it sounds like it's the optimization itself.
  • 00:52:17
    Yeah, it's the optimization. And so we are looking for
  • 00:52:21
    what is the sticking point? What the trend is showing us
  • 00:52:24
    the most predictable sticking point is how small the topology becomes. So as
  • 00:52:28
    we scale down to 10%, so we're seeing that in four,
  • 00:52:31
    five, and six. It's most pronounced on the slides there as it goes
  • 00:52:34
    in the middle of the screen there. The hockey stick up was
  • 00:52:38
    the 70, 80. I'm sorry. The reverse of that down to the 10%,
  • 00:52:42
    was that 363 hours run. So that was the smallest topology.
  • 00:52:45
    And then we reset on the 70% topology and run
  • 00:52:49
    through those in the performance kits. So we're actually talking about
  • 00:52:52
    whether or not we do transaction limits based on the topology
  • 00:52:56
    of the network. So rather than having a set it and forget it number is
  • 00:52:59
    whether or not for each topology, whether we scale back numbers
  • 00:53:03
    into different values for the. So if we're only doing a 10% model,
  • 00:53:07
    maybe we just do less bids for that model. But on these
  • 00:53:11
    larger sequences, three and four allow a higher one. Does that
  • 00:53:14
    make sense? Like, scale it to the problem. Like, we're just a victim of
  • 00:53:18
    400,000 across all this, and we don't want to be the least common
  • 00:53:22
    denominator. Your biggest problem is the last sequence where they're offering more capacity,
  • 00:53:27
    is that what you're saying? We're offering the least capacity, so the furthest out.
  • 00:53:30
    So, yeah, so four, five, and six, those are the ones that you
  • 00:53:33
    see picking up. Yeah. And when I went to TAC was, we just survived 180
  • 00:53:38
    hours, so that's over a one week. We don't like that either, because if
  • 00:53:41
    you have to run it twice. But then we were surprised because our next run
  • 00:53:45
    was 122 hours. So it looks like we're not as bad as we thought we
  • 00:53:48
    were. So we're studying that to figure out what the mystery
  • 00:53:51
    arrow on the right is. What will sequence six be, and how do we mitigate?
  • 00:53:55
    Okay, that's helpful. My other.
  • 00:53:58
    I have just other questions, too.
  • 00:54:03
    Getting toward the solutions when you look at the
  • 00:54:06
    options and you want to put a price on the options,
  • 00:54:09
    it sounds like you're looking at like a per bid. Well, I guess
  • 00:54:13
    this is the minimum that's out in the protocols right now. The minimum querying price.
  • 00:54:16
    Have you looked at the sensitivity of profitability on CR
  • 00:54:21
    transactions and see exactly where you would have
  • 00:54:24
    to place that option fee
  • 00:54:28
    award fee to actually drive
  • 00:54:32
    a behavior where you'd see less options? I don't know that we have the data
  • 00:54:36
    to do that. I mean, one thing we're looking at is how many bids are
  • 00:54:38
    a penny. And so if we increase to $0.05 or $0.25,
  • 00:54:43
    do those all go away? There's no way to tell because we don't know what
  • 00:54:45
    the real signal is behind the market on these. Right. So, like, in an extreme
  • 00:54:49
    case, if the average person was making a penny on every
  • 00:54:53
    option and you put a fee at two pennies,
  • 00:54:56
    then it may be a little draconian. If everyone's making $5
  • 00:55:02
    a megawatt hour on options and you put something in for a quarter, you're not
  • 00:55:05
    going to see any change. Good point, good point.
  • 00:55:09
    So we can study that again. We want to do the deep dive with CMWG,
  • 00:55:13
    but we're going to come forward with more of a roadmap to say, this is
  • 00:55:15
    what we have to solve. And when we have to solve it, instead of just
  • 00:55:18
    going around the mountain and saying, well, there's some different ideas, it's like, well,
  • 00:55:22
    there's the long term solution, but we need to get to at least a per
  • 00:55:25
    CRR account holder lower limit to not repeat
  • 00:55:28
    what we're about to do this month if we don't get it right. So,
  • 00:55:31
    okay. And then with the, if you eliminate the multi
  • 00:55:34
    months, if that same person
  • 00:55:38
    then submits six bids for every month,
  • 00:55:41
    are you in a better place or is there something about the linkage
  • 00:55:45
    itself that actually makes it harder
  • 00:55:49
    to clear versus if it was broken up times six,
  • 00:55:53
    you have six more transactions. Does that make sense? Yes. And Samantha
  • 00:55:56
    touched on a little bit. We believe that taking that six month locked
  • 00:55:59
    strip and breaking it into discrete pieces, that it gives us
  • 00:56:03
    a performance boost. So that one bid becomes six. We would still get the boost,
  • 00:56:08
    but we need to study that. Okay. And that is something we
  • 00:56:11
    can study. We can take each of those and break it up and run a
  • 00:56:14
    study and see what happens to say same stuff, just no multi
  • 00:56:17
    month, and run it as if they were discrete. Okay.
  • 00:56:21
    And with the, if you go into the time of
  • 00:56:25
    use limits, are you implying or suggesting
  • 00:56:28
    that if you went to a transaction adjustment period,
  • 00:56:31
    that you would only require the rebidding for
  • 00:56:35
    that specific time of use. No, I wish we could. The whole
  • 00:56:38
    thing sets, so it's the transaction, the adjustment
  • 00:56:42
    period be for the whole thing. And that new 400,000,
  • 00:56:45
    that curtailment that Samantha showed would be across
  • 00:56:48
    everything. Okay. Okay. And if you.
  • 00:56:52
    If you went into the regime where you limited the
  • 00:56:56
    multi months and you're now
  • 00:57:00
    running, you're now able to run, effectively, 18 auctions,
  • 00:57:05
    you know, three times of uses. Now you
  • 00:57:09
    have six months, so you're able to run 18 auctions.
  • 00:57:13
    We would. I'm sorry if I pick up. Right, because today you run three
  • 00:57:16
    auctions.
  • 00:57:19
    So we would still run three. I mean, the.
  • 00:57:25
    If I swing and miss. But what I think is we'd still have three distinct
  • 00:57:28
    auctions. We would just not allow multi month bids anymore.
  • 00:57:33
    So they will be monthly bids. They're discrete and discretionarily
  • 00:57:37
    solved in the solver as monthly pieces, parts. But we wouldn't break it
  • 00:57:40
    up into separate auctions. It would be an opportunity you'd have, though.
  • 00:57:44
    In theory. In theory,
  • 00:57:47
    yeah. Samantha, did I say anything dramatically wrong? No,
  • 00:57:51
    that was exactly right. The structure of the auctions at
  • 00:57:55
    this point would not change. It would just be a validation
  • 00:57:59
    rule that would have to be implemented in order to
  • 00:58:02
    disallow month bids. So we'd continue to only lock
  • 00:58:05
    a credit for the time of uses. Yeah. You know,
  • 00:58:09
    it is an opportunity there where you could actually have six credit locks
  • 00:58:13
    or update team, depending on how you want to do that.
  • 00:58:19
    Yes. That would require six credit locks.
  • 00:58:23
    Like, if we were to change the structure of the long term auctions
  • 00:58:27
    to be six individual monthly auctions,
  • 00:58:30
    then market participants would have to submit bids
  • 00:58:35
    to six different auctions and credit to
  • 00:58:38
    six different auctions. Not necessarily the former, because today you don't
  • 00:58:42
    have to submit three separate for each time of use. You can submit it one
  • 00:58:45
    and you guys take it at the gate and ferret it out.
  • 00:58:50
    True, but that would be a system change.
  • 00:58:53
    Yep. And then sort of my last overall
  • 00:58:56
    thing is along the lines of Ian, are you guys, when's the last time you've
  • 00:59:00
    totally refreshed your hardware on what you're running
  • 00:59:04
    the Sierra platform on? We have the latest and greatest 28 cpu's
  • 00:59:08
    per auction. So every auction we're running 75 plus cpu's
  • 00:59:12
    for a week. So it is a humming machine. Have you benchmarked that
  • 00:59:16
    to other ISOs like PJM and MISO that run multi month?
  • 00:59:19
    Nobody does the complexity we do. Nobody does the multi month strips.
  • 00:59:23
    Nobody does the point to point options. We have.
  • 00:59:27
    We have the bleeding edge of things. Yeah. Okay. Yep. I can sympathize with that.
  • 00:59:31
    And I understand that the options is a favorable product that
  • 00:59:34
    people don't want to see go away. So that obviously takes up computational
  • 00:59:40
    space that other ISIS might not have to contend with.
  • 00:59:45
    Okay. I'm just looking at this like,
  • 00:59:48
    I hope that you guys can solve
  • 00:59:52
    it. I think one thing that maybe wasn't explored in this deck,
  • 00:59:56
    Washington actually reforming the way that you run
  • 00:59:59
    the adjustment process today. It's just a straight cut.
  • 01:00:04
    There's some. There's some things you might be able to do. We are all
  • 01:00:08
    ears. So I think what we're going to do is we're going to say,
  • 01:00:10
    how do we get out of the woods on this and give some incremental steps?
  • 01:00:14
    But then we're open to everything at CMWG in terms of those bid prices.
  • 01:00:17
    Again, I like what Bill said, and I keyed in on that, too, with the
  • 01:00:20
    team, is, let's make these Tac approved bid prices so we don't have to do
  • 01:00:23
    a protocol change. If we go to a nickel to.
  • 01:00:27
    We just kind of explore those. But, and again,
  • 01:00:30
    limitations by network models and other options, we're willing to turn all those dials to
  • 01:00:34
    help get the most we can. If you develop this and you start charging,
  • 01:00:38
    this is a very novel thing in the ERCOT market. Not so novel outside of
  • 01:00:41
    ERCOT. But do you have, does the PUC have to bless that as
  • 01:00:46
    some sort of new rate that ERCOT would be embarking on? No, you're right,
  • 01:00:49
    because that keyed in our legal folks pretty quick. The money would just be put
  • 01:00:53
    back in and given back to load. So it would not be money that we
  • 01:00:57
    actually hold, nor a fee. So it's a.
  • 01:01:00
    I mean, it's still a fee, but it's not a ERCOT collected fee.
  • 01:01:03
    It's more of a cost of one ERCOT, to be careful that
  • 01:01:07
    whenever you put in a new fee, this isn't a market service fee,
  • 01:01:11
    this is a fee to drive an outcome in
  • 01:01:14
    a behavior. So, you know, if it's going to
  • 01:01:17
    a certain class of market participants, then it'd be unfortunate if they looked
  • 01:01:20
    at it as a tax that they get to collect that was devoid of
  • 01:01:24
    the actual behavior that you're trying to drive, where they just view as, like,
  • 01:01:27
    a fund that they get at the end of the year versus something that's actually
  • 01:01:31
    trying to get at the problem that's being solved. And more to that
  • 01:01:34
    point, I think that any funds you do collect would be better allocated towards
  • 01:01:39
    improving the systems or whatever else you would need to do to improve the
  • 01:01:42
    CRR market. And that's where we've been told it gets weird. I. We've said
  • 01:01:46
    that for other. I'll just vaguely point to this. We thought
  • 01:01:50
    collecting fees to invest in hardware is something we could do, and that gets to
  • 01:01:53
    a strange spot. So. Okay, I just want you to be aware of motives and
  • 01:01:57
    incentives. There could be a class of people that want to drive that up just
  • 01:02:00
    so that they can collect money versus actually drive
  • 01:02:04
    market improvement. Well said.
  • 01:02:07
    Okay, let's move to Trevor
  • 01:02:11
    with LCRA. Go ahead, Trevor. Hey, Trevor Safko,
  • 01:02:15
    LCRA. First, just want to note our appreciation
  • 01:02:19
    to ERCOT for escalating the situation. I have a few
  • 01:02:22
    questions around some of the short term mitigation steps being
  • 01:02:26
    contemplated, but we do appreciate the complexity
  • 01:02:29
    of the optimization problem, particularly for the sequence six auctions.
  • 01:02:34
    However, it is concerning to us that we are, you know,
  • 01:02:38
    contemplating limits to CRR account holder transactions.
  • 01:02:41
    Trevor, you might need to get a little closer to your mic. Sorry. Yeah,
  • 01:02:44
    first time on this mic, so, yeah. We are
  • 01:02:48
    deeply concerned that ERCOT is already anticipating limits to
  • 01:02:52
    the CRR account holder transactions after implementing system
  • 01:02:56
    changes in June to address some of these optimization challenges,
  • 01:03:00
    our team spend many hours planning the strategies for these auctions.
  • 01:03:04
    So my understanding is that, that.
  • 01:03:06
    333 hours. So if that if we were to
  • 01:03:10
    see a similar solution time for the
  • 01:03:14
    upcoming sequence six auction, that would put us roughly a day or two
  • 01:03:18
    late, and that would be in violation of the protocols,
  • 01:03:21
    correct? Yes. And, I mean, the bigger issue
  • 01:03:25
    is the hockey stick that it's on. What if another 10,000 bids put that
  • 01:03:28
    thing up? How much higher? Yes. That is. You're hitting
  • 01:03:32
    the right. Okay. Assumptions. Okay, great.
  • 01:03:34
    So what, maybe quickly, is just a point of clarification.
  • 01:03:38
    So can we jump to slide eight very quickly?
  • 01:03:44
    So the. I understand we don't know the exact number
  • 01:03:48
    that that limit would be, but am I reading this correctly? It would be
  • 01:03:52
    somewhere between 1857 and 915.
  • 01:03:55
    And is that per time of use bucket or for the
  • 01:03:59
    full. Per CRR account holder per time of use bucket?
  • 01:04:03
    Or are we effectively dividing that by three for
  • 01:04:06
    each time of use bucket? Samantha, I'll let you argue.
  • 01:04:10
    Yeah. Those numbers are for the entire auction.
  • 01:04:14
    So CRR account holders can submit up
  • 01:04:18
    to. They can divvy up those numbers across
  • 01:04:22
    the tous how they like. It's not specifically
  • 01:04:26
    divided by three, so. But that's
  • 01:04:30
    the total limit. So it would go from,
  • 01:04:33
    for example, in the last sequence six auction,
  • 01:04:36
    instead of being 4000 per account holder for
  • 01:04:39
    all three times of use, it would be 1857,
  • 01:04:44
    covering all three times abuse.
  • 01:04:47
    Gotcha. That's very helpful. Thank you. So just
  • 01:04:52
    some quick questions, I guess, following up on that.
  • 01:04:55
    So if we
  • 01:04:59
    are, if this limit is.
  • 01:05:04
    I'm sorry. So I would just ask of ERCOT.
  • 01:05:08
    So you mentioned that we have, I think, 28 CPUs that are being played.
  • 01:05:11
    So this kind of, the system's kind of a black box to me.
  • 01:05:15
    But is there anything that can be done outside of protocol changes from
  • 01:05:18
    a hardware cloud computing perspective, or that getting to 28 CPUs,
  • 01:05:22
    that's a long term process, that's a hardware investment. That's not something that can be
  • 01:05:25
    spun up. There's no additional resources or optimization that can
  • 01:05:29
    be spun up within a week's time for this upcoming sequence six auction.
  • 01:05:32
    Is that correct? Correct. There's actually diminishing returns that once you
  • 01:05:36
    put it up to 30 plus CPU's, then it slows down because it's so multi
  • 01:05:39
    threaded, it's taken more time to put it back together again. We've optimized
  • 01:05:43
    the 28 cpu's actually. Okay. Okay.
  • 01:05:46
    And I'm sorry. And we do have a software
  • 01:05:50
    upgrade that just hit. And that's what we're testing right now to see what the
  • 01:05:53
    risk is before TAC of whether or not we believe this performance
  • 01:05:56
    is. So we're putting another performance fix in to get another.
  • 01:06:00
    We think it's 15% to 20% and we're testing that now to
  • 01:06:03
    see how does that leave our risk for the next auction.
  • 01:06:06
    Okay. Okay. And I guess my last question would just be,
  • 01:06:11
    we wonder if ERCOT could maybe elaborate on kind of the cost
  • 01:06:15
    benefit analysis of I appreciate the risk of the
  • 01:06:18
    hockey stick exceeding the last 363 hours solution,
  • 01:06:23
    but could we maybe I'll just elaborate on the details of the cost
  • 01:06:27
    benefit of posting a solution one or two days late in violation of protocols
  • 01:06:31
    versus throttling the transaction
  • 01:06:34
    limits for all CRR account holders and potentially disrupting congestion hedging
  • 01:06:38
    strategies, uh, with a week's notice. Um,
  • 01:06:42
    you have my sympathy. Um, I.
  • 01:06:45
    What we can't dial in is the magic
  • 01:06:49
    number that predictively says that we come in at 363
  • 01:06:52
    or just over that. Yeah, our SLA that we want to be is at 100
  • 01:06:56
    hours. We want this thing to run in three days, have time to run it
  • 01:06:58
    again and again. Uh, we had a read write error,
  • 01:07:01
    our network disconnected, and we had to start over again. And it's never happened.
  • 01:07:04
    For one of the biggies so we're trying to find some resiliency behind the
  • 01:07:08
    scenes and not just ride this out and hope so.
  • 01:07:12
    So even if it. If we knew it was going to go 300 hours,
  • 01:07:17
    maybe we let it ride. But we're hoping to get this under 200 is
  • 01:07:20
    our magic number and we don't want to be there. But we believe 200 hours,
  • 01:07:24
    if we can model it and predict that we think it'll solve in that
  • 01:07:28
    and that we can let this ride, instead of 133,000,
  • 01:07:31
    maybe it goes up to 145,000 for peak weekday,
  • 01:07:34
    we can let that ride, but again, I'll provide that more to TAC on.
  • 01:07:37
    Here's our risk, here's where we're at. So at TAC, we're not going to open
  • 01:07:40
    all this up. We're saying, here's our mitigation strategy and what it looks like
  • 01:07:44
    in terms of the numbers. Great. Very helpful. Yeah. And I'll just close with just
  • 01:07:48
    saying that I agree with Ian's comment around kind of
  • 01:07:51
    just an overall review of some of the systems that could be impacted
  • 01:07:55
    here. And we are, of course, very sympathetic and indeed supportive of
  • 01:07:59
    some of the longer term solutions being contemplated to address
  • 01:08:03
    this issue. Samuel, did you have something?
  • 01:08:06
    Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm understanding the timeline because I'm getting a
  • 01:08:09
    little confused. Matt, you mentioned that this
  • 01:08:13
    is going to come up at TAC, and that's next Wednesday, the 19th,
  • 01:08:17
    and that's the same date as the next long term auction is closing. So can
  • 01:08:21
    you just walk through that timing? We're going to be transparent with what
  • 01:08:24
    we may have to do. That's the end of the story. So what
  • 01:08:28
    happens is we're running a study right now to figure out how
  • 01:08:31
    high we can go. And so we're acknowledging the secondary
  • 01:08:35
    constraint that we're using as a lifeboat to hold things together.
  • 01:08:38
    And so based on that, we'll bring to Tac what
  • 01:08:42
    we're doing so that there's no surprises.
  • 01:08:47
    And I don't. And we're not even asking for approval at TAC. It's more
  • 01:08:50
    of a be. We want you to be aware of this secondary measure we may
  • 01:08:54
    need to take. So if that takes relief, we don't need
  • 01:08:58
    anything from the market, but we want to admit that we may be in a
  • 01:09:00
    space of where we do something that protocols don't really prescribe.
  • 01:09:04
    But it's a secondary constraint. 400,000 is what it says.
  • 01:09:08
    But then everyone runs to the peak weekday and they're overloading it.
  • 01:09:11
    And so we let it overload and go in the ditch or we mitigate it.
  • 01:09:15
    So I'm going there as the business director to say I need to hold this
  • 01:09:18
    market together. And here's how we're going to mitigate it. And we're going to hold
  • 01:09:21
    to a magic number of time of use constraint.
  • 01:09:24
    And based on 05:00 that day, we'll know how many we have,
  • 01:09:28
    but we don't know until the auction closes. Okay. So it wouldn't be a
  • 01:09:32
    ex ante limitation. Y'all are going to do it after the fact.
  • 01:09:36
    I think that's where maybe I was getting a little confused.
  • 01:09:39
    Okay, so it's going to open as normal people can submit whatever
  • 01:09:43
    they're going to submit for the existing rules and protocols. And then
  • 01:09:46
    what's the notification to the market going to look like in the event
  • 01:09:50
    post TAC, a decision is made to impose the limit.
  • 01:09:58
    Let me think about that. So the market notice.
  • 01:10:01
    So, Samantha, did we walk down the market notice that's going out that
  • 01:10:05
    way? Usual 400,000. Go ahead. The typical
  • 01:10:09
    auction notice that goes out ahead of each auction
  • 01:10:15
    notes. Currently that hasn't changed
  • 01:10:18
    what that notes is. The preliminary per account
  • 01:10:23
    holder limit, which is for the sequence
  • 01:10:27
    six that closes next week, it's 915 per
  • 01:10:31
    account holder. If the specific question that you're asking
  • 01:10:35
    is, how will the market know if the per
  • 01:10:38
    TOU limit was utilized in the
  • 01:10:42
    auction? There are
  • 01:10:46
    automated messages that are posted after
  • 01:10:49
    the close of the bid window with our market closing process,
  • 01:10:54
    where the application itself will report
  • 01:10:57
    the total number of transactions submitted per TOU
  • 01:11:02
    and whether the total auction limit
  • 01:11:06
    was exceeded or whether a TOU limit was exceeded.
  • 01:11:10
    So those are posted automatically to
  • 01:11:13
    the market user interface messages tab.
  • 01:11:19
    Thank you, Samantha. You're welcome.
  • 01:11:22
    Okay, let's keep moving. Bob Wittmeyer.
  • 01:11:27
    Yeah, a couple of things. One, just remind everybody that
  • 01:11:30
    we at PRS, they just passed NPRR1188,
  • 01:11:34
    which is going to give resource nodes to CLRs. It's a 2028
  • 01:11:39
    kind of project, but that's going to add a lot more
  • 01:11:42
    pressure on things. And as far
  • 01:11:45
    as getting rid of the time of use,
  • 01:11:48
    have we looked at the credit implications of doing
  • 01:11:52
    that?
  • 01:11:58
    So that's just something to be concerned about, I think, is what
  • 01:12:02
    did we just do to everybody's credit requirement? And we
  • 01:12:05
    do that, we might not have to worry about exceeding number of bids anymore.
  • 01:12:13
    I just want to clarify.
  • 01:12:19
    Yeah, let me try this, Samantha. So the
  • 01:12:22
    proposal from Seth was something that other market participants had said
  • 01:12:25
    is still have that six month auction, but clear
  • 01:12:29
    it discreetly as monthly units rather than as with strips of
  • 01:12:33
    that are in there. And so it's the idea of simplifying to wear each one
  • 01:12:36
    because its own little optimization, but it's still a long term auction sequence,
  • 01:12:40
    so it's, it's still the same locked credit. It still solves
  • 01:12:44
    the same way. It's literally, we'll block the bid that says multi
  • 01:12:47
    month's not allowed. So they can do what they do today. You can buy Jan,
  • 01:12:50
    Feb, March, April, May, but you just can't do
  • 01:12:54
    it as an all or in, you know, all or nothing type offer.
  • 01:12:58
    That would be it. Yeah, the block bids
  • 01:13:01
    go away. They're discrete monthly bids and that's something
  • 01:13:04
    we could do.
  • 01:13:08
    Okay, let's move on. Alfredo, you're up.
  • 01:13:12
    Hello, this is Alfredo with ERCOT. So I just had a couple of comments
  • 01:13:16
    and Bob actually brought up one of the comments, I was going to
  • 01:13:20
    say, which was the NPRR1188 CLRs with
  • 01:13:23
    resource node. That's going to increase the resource nodes.
  • 01:13:26
    That's again going to potentially increase the number of transactions.
  • 01:13:30
    Bob, thanks for bringing that up. So I
  • 01:13:33
    did also want to kind of point out that trevor had asked about
  • 01:13:37
    some of the things that we can do. And I just want to reiterate
  • 01:13:40
    what Matt said. As far as the hardware is concerned, we've done quite
  • 01:13:44
    a bit on that front. And then as well as the
  • 01:13:48
    business versions, the software versions we actually
  • 01:13:52
    have had. This will be our second version that we are taking
  • 01:13:55
    in the. As a improvement.
  • 01:13:58
    And just to kind of give a little bit of detail on it,
  • 01:14:03
    it will be available for sequence six. So I will say that that new version
  • 01:14:07
    will be available for sequence six. But if you take a look at the last
  • 01:14:10
    sequence six, you can see that 117,000
  • 01:14:14
    was the number for. To use for the peak weekday.
  • 01:14:18
    And again, we're now saying that we would like to,
  • 01:14:21
    you know, cut the 400 to three, which is 133. So again,
  • 01:14:25
    we are increasing that we had issues with the 117,
  • 01:14:28
    but because of the improvements we have had, you know, we are
  • 01:14:32
    thinking about that 133, which is again more than what
  • 01:14:35
    we were able to handle back in sequence six with the 363
  • 01:14:39
    hours. I will also mention that with
  • 01:14:43
    all these improvements, again, if there were no improvements,
  • 01:14:46
    we would have been in pretty bad shape. Just to give an example,
  • 01:14:50
    a sequence four study was done, which was the 180 hours
  • 01:14:53
    based on an older, the older version of the software.
  • 01:14:58
    And that one took over 400 hours. So that already would have been
  • 01:15:02
    exceeding the 363. Now the thing that Matt had
  • 01:15:05
    mentioned was the fact that we want to make sure and mitigate this problem
  • 01:15:09
    because we don't want to sit there and just hope that it's going to solve.
  • 01:15:12
    And that's the main thing here, is that this may
  • 01:15:15
    very well, at some point we, you know, it may not solve,
  • 01:15:19
    it may just not solve and it crashes, whatever it may
  • 01:15:23
    be, and then we're kind of dead in the water. So I just wanted to,
  • 01:15:26
    again, just point out the fact that, you know, we absolutely on the
  • 01:15:30
    ERCOT side, we have been doing the best that we can to make sure that
  • 01:15:33
    we're taking care of that hardware as well as the software
  • 01:15:36
    side of things to make sure that we're, that it will be solving
  • 01:15:40
    that optimization problem. So I just want to at least point that out there.
  • 01:15:44
    Thank you. Yeah. And to piggyback what Alfredo pointed out, the last
  • 01:15:47
    time we had the sequence six, it was 117,000. So this may be
  • 01:15:51
    all for not. We may end up with 132,000 bids in
  • 01:15:54
    this one, and we could accept and run just as if nothing was ever said,
  • 01:15:58
    but we just want to make people aware of the risk.
  • 01:16:02
    Okay, I see Seth is the last one in the
  • 01:16:05
    queue, and hopefully we can end with this comment. So go
  • 01:16:09
    ahead, Seth. When will we know the limits that
  • 01:16:13
    you use for the next cell test? Is that
  • 01:16:16
    like right before the auction or at what point?
  • 01:16:19
    Yes, that's what we'll share at TAC, TAC. You're going to
  • 01:16:22
    show that. Okay, that's the day of the auction.
  • 01:16:25
    Okay. All right, thank you.
  • 01:16:29
    Do you have anything else, Matt, you want to wrap up? No, that's it.
  • 01:16:32
    I mean, to that end, it's actually where we can't
  • 01:16:36
    restrain bids by time of use. It all just comes
  • 01:16:40
    in and then we're just counting how many land in these different buckets. And so
  • 01:16:43
    that's why we're talking about the mitigation. So again,
  • 01:16:47
    we want to continue to focus. So we hope this doesn't happen. We want to
  • 01:16:50
    be transparent with the risk of what we may need to do. And we look
  • 01:16:53
    forward to working with CMWG on these short term what can we do
  • 01:16:56
    in the next two to three months with limiting CRR accountholder activity?
  • 01:17:00
    So instead, the worst case scenario is going from 3000 to 900.
  • 01:17:05
    Is there something in the middle that says, well, let's just take a haircut so
  • 01:17:08
    that everyone else can survive this, and then let's talk about a market solution
  • 01:17:12
    that helps to economically put people in a place in the right bids.
  • 01:17:15
    So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Really appreciate
  • 01:17:18
    you and Samantha and ERCOT pulling all this together and
  • 01:17:23
    sharing the information I know there's a lot of, a lot of work that's going
  • 01:17:26
    on and worry. There was a mention about an NPRR.
  • 01:17:29
    Is, is that being worked on or did I
  • 01:17:33
    misunderstand? Yes. We'll be looking at drafts to take the CMWG and
  • 01:17:36
    start there. Okay, great. All right, thank you again.
  • 01:17:40
    Let's move on to the next
  • 01:17:43
    item. Large load interconnection report and Chris Cosway.
  • 01:17:49
    Yes. Hello, guys, can you hear me? Yes.
  • Item 5.3 - Large Load Interconnection Report - Manuel Navarro Catalan - Chris Cosway
    01:17:59
    All right. Hi, everyone. My name is Chris Cosway.
  • 01:18:02
    I will be presenting the large zone interconnection status update for
  • 01:18:06
    everybody. Today. We go to the next slide.
  • 01:18:15
    So looking at our queue over the past twelve months, we can see that there's
  • 01:18:19
    been significant growth in co located and standalone projects
  • 01:18:23
    since last October. And one notable fact here is
  • 01:18:26
    that these standalone projects make up a majority of the megawatts
  • 01:18:30
    that we're seeing, and they are growing significantly
  • 01:18:33
    faster than the co located projects. And as you
  • 01:18:37
    can see, as of September 24, we're at nearly 57 gigawatts
  • 01:18:43
    since last month. The Queue update. We've seen a combination of
  • 01:18:47
    new standalone and co-located projects as well as a few cancellations,
  • 01:18:52
    but this increased our total Queue capacity by 4439
  • 01:18:55
    mw since last month.
  • 01:18:59
    Next slide, please.
  • 01:19:07
    So here is our current large load interconnection queue.
  • 01:19:11
    And this shows 2022 to 2028.
  • 01:19:15
    And as we can see from 2027 and 2028, there's a significant
  • 01:19:19
    increase. And this is mainly due to a lot of projects
  • 01:19:22
    having in service dates that fall in the year 2028. And that's
  • 01:19:26
    why there's a pretty significant jump there. And on the right here,
  • 01:19:29
    looking at the overall statuses of our projects,
  • 01:19:33
    the ERCOT review has most
  • 01:19:36
    of the megawatts, and that's mainly due to a lot of projects.
  • 01:19:40
    We don't have all the studies to move those forward or those
  • 01:19:44
    studies are under review on ERCOT side. So that's why a majority of
  • 01:19:48
    the megawatts are in that status. Next slide,
  • 01:19:52
    please.
  • 01:19:57
    So ERCOT approvals over the past twelve months,
  • 01:20:01
    since last October of 2023, we've seen
  • 01:20:06
    a slight increase near the beginning of this year. But in the past
  • 01:20:09
    month, the planning studies approved have gone down
  • 01:20:12
    slightly, and the approved energized megawatts
  • 01:20:16
    are fairly consistent. And over
  • 01:20:20
    the past year, we've seen 1570 load
  • 01:20:24
    approved to energize.
  • 01:20:27
    Next slide, please.
  • 01:20:34
    So loads approved to energize by load zone and project
  • 01:20:38
    type of 5496 mw approved energized
  • 01:20:42
    2854 mw resides in load zone west,
  • 01:20:46
    and 26. 42 mw resides in the
  • 01:20:50
    other load zones. 4421 mw consists
  • 01:20:54
    of standalone projects and 1075 mw
  • 01:20:58
    consists of co located projects. So looking at
  • 01:21:01
    this graph on the left here, approved energized
  • 01:21:04
    by load zone type, we can see on the left column the load zone
  • 01:21:08
    west makes up a similar total
  • 01:21:11
    compared to the other load zones combined.
  • 01:21:14
    And on the right side here, approved to energize by project
  • 01:21:18
    type, we can see the stand alone projects make up more
  • 01:21:21
    observed non simultaneous peak load as well as there's
  • 01:21:25
    more remaining approved energized load. That's mainly due to we're seeing more
  • 01:21:29
    standalone projects coming in compared to co located projects.
  • 01:21:33
    Next slide, please.
  • 01:21:45
    So, loads approved to energize. So some of our observations of 5496
  • 01:21:50
    mw that have received approval to energize. ERCOT has observed
  • 01:21:54
    a non simultaneous peak consumption of 3282.
  • 01:21:59
    This is calculated by the sum of the maximum value for each
  • 01:22:02
    of the individual loads, regardless of when those maximums values occurred
  • 01:22:06
    in time. And as we can see in terms
  • 01:22:10
    of this graph, we've seen a steady increase since last October in the non
  • 01:22:13
    simultaneous peak load. And the remaining approved
  • 01:22:17
    energized load has leveled off slightly. It's still increasing,
  • 01:22:21
    but it's a lot less compared to the non simultaneous peak load we
  • 01:22:25
    were seeing. Next slide,
  • 01:22:27
    please.
  • 01:22:35
    So some more observations. ERCOT has observed a simultaneous peak
  • 01:22:39
    consumption of 2815 mw.
  • 01:22:43
    This is the maximum value of the sum of all individual loads.
  • 01:22:46
    And this value is the maximum amount large ERCOT has seen at
  • 01:22:51
    a single point in time. So looking at this graph, we can see an
  • 01:22:54
    increase in observed simultaneous peak load since last October.
  • 01:22:59
    And we can also see that the remaining approved energized load has
  • 01:23:03
    increased. But it's more consistent compared to the steady
  • 01:23:06
    increase in the simultaneous peak load we are seeing next
  • 01:23:12
    slide.
  • 01:23:16
    So hopefully I tried to keep that quick for you guys. I know there's a
  • 01:23:19
    lot on the agenda. I appreciate everyone's time and
  • 01:23:22
    thank you guys. If there are any questions, feel free to ask those.
  • 01:23:26
    Now you've got a couple of questions in the room. Bill Barnes,
  • 01:23:30
    really appreciate you guys giving us these updates on
  • 01:23:34
    a frequent basis. This is probably the number one thing that
  • 01:23:37
    everyone's looking at right now in terms of assessing the ERCOT
  • 01:23:41
    market. A couple requests.
  • 01:23:44
    One, if you can go back to slide, I think two or three,
  • 01:23:48
    the interconnection queue chart.
  • 01:23:54
    That one right there. Thanks.
  • 01:23:57
    Is if you could also tell us what is actually energized.
  • 01:24:02
    So you have approved to energize and then there's some
  • 01:24:06
    other subset of that that is actually energized and I'm
  • 01:24:09
    wondering if ERCOT knows that. I know you have what you've observed for
  • 01:24:14
    non simultaneous and simultaneous peaks, but we would like to know the name plate
  • 01:24:17
    capacity of the loads that are actually energized,
  • 01:24:21
    if that's possible, and then a
  • 01:24:25
    breakdown of what these loads are. And you may not have that information yet without
  • 01:24:29
    NPRR1234. But on the load forecasting
  • 01:24:34
    site, on the ERCOT website, there's a breakdown of these loads
  • 01:24:37
    by type. Data center, crypto hydrogen.
  • 01:24:42
    That would be super helpful to include in this
  • 01:24:45
    presentation going forward. And if you need. You may
  • 01:24:49
    need NPRR1234 to do that. I'm not sure, but you got the
  • 01:24:53
    information somewhere, because it's actually on the ERCOT website in a different location.
  • 01:24:57
    So we would appreciate that as well.
  • 01:25:01
    And then if you can scroll down to.
  • 01:25:04
    I'm thinking it's seven,
  • 01:25:13
    maybe next slide. Sorry. No, that's not
  • 01:25:16
    it. Oh, that one right there. Sorry.
  • 01:25:21
    So, in the observed non simultaneous
  • 01:25:26
    and remaining to be approved. Remaining approval to
  • 01:25:29
    energize load, is there any additional
  • 01:25:34
    information that could be provided on what
  • 01:25:39
    the timing of the remaining category?
  • 01:25:43
    I'm trying to think, trying to compare this to what we see in the gis,
  • 01:25:46
    where we have. There's dates, we can see this
  • 01:25:49
    wave coming. And right now, we don't have
  • 01:25:53
    a whole lot of information in terms of. And maybe this is
  • 01:25:57
    a 1234 thing, as well as we'll actually get a large
  • 01:26:00
    load GIS report,
  • 01:26:03
    hopefully. I think the point is we would. As much transparency
  • 01:26:08
    that you could provide on this is. Would be greatly appreciated, because,
  • 01:26:12
    again, this is the number one thing that everyone's looking at in
  • 01:26:16
    terms of assessing the ERCOT market. Thank you.
  • 01:26:19
    Okay. Yeah, I appreciate your observations here. We're trying to
  • 01:26:22
    be as transparent as possible. I can talk to my team and see if we
  • 01:26:25
    can provide any further breakdowns for you guys. But currently,
  • 01:26:28
    this is how we're looking at the data and what we're allowed to
  • 01:26:32
    show. Great.
  • 01:26:36
    Good stuff, Bill. Bryan, I didn't
  • 01:26:39
    coordinate this comment with Bill Barnes, but I have the exact same
  • 01:26:43
    comment. There are so many people that are just thirsty
  • 01:26:48
    for information about what is in this large
  • 01:26:52
    load queue. Where is it double counted?
  • 01:26:55
    Is it triple counted? Quadruple counted? What is it? And just
  • 01:27:00
    having more transparency would,
  • 01:27:03
    I think, benefit all of ERCOT stakeholders.
  • 01:27:08
    Sometimes you hear this comment that there's some limitation
  • 01:27:11
    on what can be shared. I would request
  • 01:27:15
    just maybe this is assignment
  • 01:27:19
    to one of our working groups to go through
  • 01:27:23
    where the limitations are, because I have this sort of,
  • 01:27:26
    like, blanket statement that load
  • 01:27:30
    information is protected somehow, but, you know,
  • 01:27:33
    I don't know where the boundaries are for what
  • 01:27:37
    can be shared, what can't, but definitely echo
  • 01:27:41
    all the comments that Bill just made. And I
  • 01:27:48
    think it also, having more transparency here
  • 01:27:52
    can give more credibility to some of the long term load forecasts that we're
  • 01:27:56
    seeing that I think a lot of people have just
  • 01:28:00
    questions about, generally. So that's my comment.
  • 01:28:03
    Thank you. Thank you.
  • 01:28:07
    Next in the queue. Seth,
  • 01:28:10
    I just have a couple questions.
  • 01:28:14
    The first one is, what does ERCOT expect to come online?
  • 01:28:17
    Like, you're showing these numbers, but what do you actually
  • 01:28:21
    expect all this to come online?
  • 01:28:24
    Let me preface the question. When we look at generation interconnection queues for the
  • 01:28:28
    last decades, we've always said, well, not all of it's going to come online.
  • 01:28:31
    Like, that's been sort of a maximum we've all spoused over the last couple
  • 01:28:35
    decades. Anyone that's been here in ERCOT knows that not everything in the queue
  • 01:28:39
    comes online. So with that said, like, do you view
  • 01:28:43
    this in the same way as a generation or connection queue where this isn't all
  • 01:28:46
    going to come online? So that's a good question in terms of
  • 01:28:49
    when it's coming online. It's based on the in service dates, these projects, the information
  • 01:28:53
    we are given in terms of if all of it's going to come
  • 01:28:56
    online, that's unlikely, but we do expect most of what we're seeing
  • 01:29:00
    to come online. How long do you have to stay in?
  • 01:29:04
    Like, how long can you stay in limbo in the queue with no measurable
  • 01:29:08
    progress before you get kicked out? Is there any rigor like
  • 01:29:12
    that to these numbers? Don't remove
  • 01:29:16
    projects from the queue unless we're told by TSP or another source that
  • 01:29:19
    the project is no longer going to move forward. So I don't have
  • 01:29:23
    a direct answer for that question, but I can talk to my team and see
  • 01:29:25
    if we can provide more detail. Okay, that's helpful. Then.
  • 01:29:29
    My last question is, how do you treat co located load, the non simultaneous
  • 01:29:34
    peak observations that you have? So are
  • 01:29:40
    you able to capture that? Are you able to know what's co located and
  • 01:29:46
    how much load that is?
  • 01:29:51
    But I believe it's sum to a total for
  • 01:29:54
    this presentation. So you are saying that it's
  • 01:30:00
    raw load. If it's co located, you're not, you're not showing anything netted,
  • 01:30:04
    and that. That's correct. Okay.
  • 01:30:11
    Thank you, Bob Wittmeyer.
  • 01:30:16
    Okay. Bill Barnes.
  • 01:30:20
    I have a really good point. I don't know what the
  • 01:30:23
    load ramp schedule is being considered
  • 01:30:27
    in this. It certainly needs to be. That would be helpful.
  • 01:30:33
    Ryan, your question was.
  • 01:30:41
    Oh, yeah. That was looked at by legal.
  • 01:30:44
    I think a review, again, of legal would probably be a good
  • 01:30:47
    thing when we started this deal. But it doesn't look good.
  • 01:30:51
    Yeah, but maybe we could do that again. And,
  • 01:30:55
    Seth, your question
  • 01:30:58
    was.
  • 01:31:03
    Okay, we got the co located part. Yeah. And so that
  • 01:31:07
    was all you were worried about? Not the non simultaneous
  • 01:31:10
    peak, because non simultaneous peak is just what they've seen in each one going
  • 01:31:14
    forward. I thought maybe that that was just front of the meter
  • 01:31:17
    and that they weren't able to capture the. I think we still have
  • 01:31:20
    some issues with behind the meter and capturing that, reflecting it properly.
  • 01:31:25
    Okay. The other thing I will suggest is
  • 01:31:30
    we have hibernated the large flexible load task force. These reports
  • 01:31:35
    are going to come here. I would hope
  • 01:31:39
    after you've seen them for two or three months,
  • 01:31:42
    we can include them as an ERCOT report rather than taking
  • 01:31:46
    our cut staff time to present them. And the reason I say that, I've looked
  • 01:31:49
    at a lot of these, they don't move a lot from
  • 01:31:53
    month to month. Certainly, if there's a big movement, we should hear something,
  • 01:31:56
    but I don't know that this is something that we need presented every
  • 01:32:00
    time. Maybe the next couple months while we get bills,
  • 01:32:04
    issues and a little more transparency on it. That'd be great.
  • 01:32:07
    But I don't think we'll need an ERCOT report,
  • 01:32:10
    but an ERCOT presentation at every meeting.
  • 01:32:13
    Thanks, Bob. You were sort of reading. Jim and I
  • 01:32:17
    had a conversation about that very topic,
  • 01:32:20
    and I think we're just going to keep
  • 01:32:24
    doing it until we realize we don't need to
  • 01:32:28
    keep doing it every month. But I think for now, we're getting a lot of
  • 01:32:30
    good questions, and I think with going into session and
  • 01:32:34
    some things going. Going on, we need to make sure this is
  • 01:32:37
    getting as robust as we can. But I do appreciate that comment,
  • 01:32:41
    and I do think that's something to watch out for.
  • 01:32:44
    Next is Ian Haley. Thank you. Just one,
  • 01:32:48
    two, second or third? I can't remember at this point the idea that
  • 01:32:52
    we should include the loads that have been connected on this so that
  • 01:32:57
    I forget which. What is it? Slide three.
  • 01:33:00
    So everyone doesn't think that's still all coming?
  • 01:33:05
    I think that would be an important call out. Thank you.
  • 01:33:09
    Very good. Any other questions or comments?
  • 01:33:12
    Yeah, one more on the filtering the queue.
  • 01:33:16
    That's NPRR1202.
  • 01:33:19
    I'm going to do some work on that this month. The issue
  • 01:33:23
    there is that 1202 imposes a
  • 01:33:27
    larger fee on requesting the ERCOT studies and
  • 01:33:31
    requires monthly quarterly payments after a
  • 01:33:35
    date to stay in the. So there's at least some thought
  • 01:33:38
    there. Seth, thanks. Very good.
  • 01:33:42
    And we'll make that official when we get to that item on the agenda
  • 01:33:46
    to hold that for those comments. Anything else?
  • 01:33:51
    Okay, next item.
  • 01:33:54
    Six. Wholesale market working group. And we have Amanda
  • 01:33:58
    Frazier to present the update.
  • 01:34:01
    Glad you're here, Amanda.
  • Item 6 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Amanda Frazier
    01:34:06
    I'm Amanda Fraser. I work with treaty oak clean
  • 01:34:09
    energy and I'm the vice chair of WMWG. So I'm filling in
  • 01:34:13
    for Blake today. Brittany, do I run it from here or. You run it.
  • 01:34:17
    Hi. Also,
  • 01:34:20
    great. So the first agenda item that we discussed
  • 01:34:23
    at WMWG this month was the AS Methodology,
  • 01:34:27
    which we've already discussed today, so we won't go over it again.
  • 01:34:31
    You go next slide.
  • 01:34:35
    And the next one. We also discussed
  • 01:34:39
    the ESR, state of charge monitoring. And ERCOT presented the
  • 01:34:43
    first month report with actual populated data from
  • 01:34:47
    July. ERCOT plans to post this on a
  • 01:34:50
    monthly basis, so it will be discussed in our ongoing WMWG
  • 01:34:54
    meeting. Next slide.
  • Item 6.1 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service Discussion
    01:34:59
    We discussed dispatchable reliability, reserve service and
  • 01:35:06
    ERCOT outlined their comments from August 23.
  • 01:35:10
    So there was discussion at a high level about adding
  • 01:35:14
    ESRs to the service.
  • 01:35:18
    No real consensus there or a plan to endorse.
  • 01:35:21
    Either way. I think there was understanding by
  • 01:35:25
    some that ESRs wouldn't be able
  • 01:35:28
    to be added in phase one. There was a commitment by ERCOT to continue
  • 01:35:33
    looking at it and to file an NPRR this year, but no commitment
  • 01:35:37
    to move forward necessarily with phase two. They also
  • 01:35:40
    went through the details of comments from,
  • 01:35:44
    from the NPRR to outline specific
  • 01:35:48
    policy decisions that are embedded in the language to make sure that market
  • 01:35:51
    participants were looking at that. It's a pretty
  • 01:35:55
    long NPRR, so just make sure that you're looking at the details
  • 01:35:58
    and no concerns or questions were raised.
  • 01:36:03
    Next slide.
  • Item 6.2 - NPRR1229, CMP Payment Policy Questions Discussion
    01:36:09
    We also discussed. This was the second time we discussed NPRR1229.
  • 01:36:14
    This was an NPRR that was filed by StEcdem, that was following
  • 01:36:18
    an incident that occurred with one of their plants.
  • 01:36:23
    And so the proposal is to include
  • 01:36:28
    a payment for when ERCOT
  • 01:36:31
    implements a CMP if there's an impact to a generator.
  • 01:36:36
    There are policy concerns that ERCOT has and has raised with
  • 01:36:39
    this NPRR. They've worked offline with Stecdem.
  • 01:36:43
    They've asked for input from market participants.
  • 01:36:48
    This was raised as a potential issue for WMS
  • 01:36:52
    to raise, to TAC, whether this is
  • 01:36:56
    a, this is a policy discussion that needs to happen at
  • 01:36:59
    a higher level. So is this something that we need to raise
  • 01:37:03
    to the pact to make sure that they are weighing in
  • 01:37:07
    on the policies. And so I guess
  • 01:37:10
    the question to WMS is, do we want to
  • 01:37:13
    suggest to TAC that this is a good test
  • 01:37:17
    balloon for those higher level policy discussions?
  • 01:37:25
    Sure.
  • 01:37:32
    Yes, sir. Good morning.
  • 01:37:35
    Thank you, Amanda, for providing this information. I just want to
  • 01:37:39
    clarify something that you said, and I believe there was maybe a lot of confusion
  • 01:37:44
    at the last WMWG.
  • 01:37:47
    We are not aware of any incident necessarily regarding a
  • 01:37:52
    unit trip offline because of this. It was more about
  • 01:37:56
    if it happens, then we need to do something. I just want
  • 01:37:59
    to make sure clear. That's a good clarification. Thank you.
  • 01:38:03
    And just for procedure, I'm okay holding
  • 01:38:07
    off a decision on what we as
  • 01:38:11
    WMS want to recommend until we get to item twelve, where this
  • 01:38:15
    item is tabled. But I do appreciate WMWG's discussion and
  • 01:38:19
    feedback and recommendation. I think that's, this is very
  • 01:38:23
    helpful. Great. Thank you. Next slide.
  • Item 6.3 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications
    01:38:32
    So we also discussed NPRR1238 and
  • 01:38:36
    luminance brought up an issue where they wanted to
  • 01:38:40
    propose a change. But my understanding is that Luminant has decided not to
  • 01:38:43
    pursue this because of timing with real time optimization.
  • 01:38:47
    So I think this is OBE and it
  • 01:38:51
    will not stay on the discussion for WMW.
  • 01:38:54
    So we can go next slide.
  • Item 6.4 - NPRR1241 Firm Fuel Supply & Hourly Standby Fee
    01:39:00
    And then Luminant also described NPRR1241,
  • 01:39:04
    which is an NPRR that they filed,
  • 01:39:08
    and there was some discussion about changes to the
  • 01:39:11
    way that the hourly standby fee
  • 01:39:15
    and is calculated for firm fuel service.
  • 01:39:19
    ERCOT discussed that they had looked at
  • 01:39:22
    it and were open to talking about the changes
  • 01:39:27
    and but there was not really a substantive agreement on
  • 01:39:31
    what that should be. So it was just an initial discussion. It had this
  • 01:39:35
    NPRR, I believe had not been to PRS yet or to WMS.
  • 01:39:38
    So it was just an initial discussion.
  • 01:39:42
    And that's another one that we'll take up eleven weekend
  • 01:39:46
    discuss if we want to table and refer
  • 01:39:49
    that for further discussion or it sounds like that's what
  • 01:39:53
    WMWG was contemplating is
  • 01:39:56
    that we would table and refer back to WWG.
  • 01:39:59
    Okay. You know, yes, we are internally
  • 01:40:04
    looking at it right now, and we might have some
  • 01:40:08
    suggestions to improve the NPRR, but at
  • 01:40:11
    this point I'm not sure when and if we're going to
  • 01:40:15
    provide comments, but we are definitely looking at it. Great.
  • 01:40:18
    Thank you. Next slide.
  • Item 6.5 - NPRR1230 / Other
    01:40:24
    And then just a little recap of other items that we
  • 01:40:27
    discussed. The one that I want to draw your attention to was
  • 01:40:31
    that we talked about NPRR1230
  • 01:40:35
    and decided that for future monitoring
  • 01:40:38
    that would occur at CMWG rather than WMWG so
  • 01:40:42
    it will not stay on our agenda going forward.
  • 01:40:47
    And that was it. Great report.
  • 01:40:51
    Anyone have any questions or comments for Amanda?
  • 01:40:56
    Very good. Thank you so much. Next, we have
  • 01:41:00
    the demand side working group, and Nathan Mancha,
  • 01:41:04
    he had sent me a note that he might have a conflict tonight. So we're
  • 01:41:07
    good? Yeah, we're good. Okay. Very good.
  • Item 7 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Nathaniel Mancha
    01:41:11
    So, but in kind of, to save a little bit of time,
  • 01:41:14
    I'm going to kind of go to the second slide because I think that's
  • 01:41:18
    going to. We can have a little bit more discussion
  • 01:41:21
    and, you know, just kind of speed things up because pretty
  • 01:41:26
    much what my feedback was, ERCOT gave
  • 01:41:30
    us a really good kind of breakdown of things going on
  • 01:41:34
    with Ader and just some NPRRs.
  • 01:41:37
    But one of the things that we talked about in the last WMS
  • 01:41:41
    meeting was, was really the second slide in the 4CP update.
  • 01:41:45
    So really just kind of some recommendations
  • 01:41:49
    of what to come back to you with. I came
  • 01:41:53
    up with really kind of two. So just
  • 01:41:57
    in the. So I'm just going to kind of run those down.
  • 01:42:02
    So really both the ideas, one of
  • 01:42:05
    them comes from having more market transparency,
  • 01:42:09
    you know, producing reports, being able to see really
  • 01:42:13
    kind of what the load is. And so that, that's the first choice.
  • 01:42:17
    I put some pros and cons here.
  • 01:42:21
    We all know that the issue that we're having with
  • 01:42:25
    kind of 4CP is kind
  • 01:42:29
    of the adjustment, the adjustment of what happens with WSL after the
  • 01:42:33
    fact. I think we're all kind of used to the slight adjustments
  • 01:42:38
    from DC Ties and stuff like that. I think the WSL
  • 01:42:41
    is what the concerning update is because
  • 01:42:45
    we're starting to see more and more WSL. And as
  • 01:42:50
    storage units in WSL kind of increase over the year,
  • 01:42:53
    we're going to kind of see this number growing and growing.
  • 01:42:57
    And I think it's just an unintended consequence. We don't
  • 01:43:01
    think about pricing and them
  • 01:43:04
    charging loads, charging during our ending 17 and
  • 01:43:08
    18 or 16 and 17. But that's what we're kind of seeing
  • 01:43:11
    a lot more of now. So I think that's kind of why we want
  • 01:43:15
    a little bit more transparency.
  • 01:43:17
    But for the asset, for the first speed, that's why I
  • 01:43:21
    kind of think this NPRR, we could get caught on because it's
  • 01:43:26
    what we decide on, what reports kind of coming out and
  • 01:43:30
    things like that. I think we're doing a good job with some ECRS reports and
  • 01:43:33
    stuff that we just talked about, but it's kind of like, what do we really
  • 01:43:37
    want to see and what fixes the issue and so the other
  • 01:43:40
    NPRR that, like, kind of we just
  • 01:43:44
    were thinking about was really, Randy had talked about it.
  • 01:43:47
    I'm not trying to put words in ERCOT's mouth or stuff, but really kind of
  • 01:43:51
    going forward, maybe just changing that overall calculation
  • 01:43:55
    using WSL and removing it.
  • 01:43:58
    Right. If we removed it, it would be a much
  • 01:44:02
    quicker way. What we see from a demand side
  • 01:44:07
    on the website or if we're pulling ICCP data or
  • 01:44:10
    things like that, we will see. Right. So it's.
  • 01:44:13
    There's going to be a slight adjustment, but we're used to small adjustments.
  • 01:44:17
    And I think the issue that hand right now is seeing
  • 01:44:21
    adjustments that could be anywhere from 400 mw right now,
  • 01:44:25
    but looking forward, thinking they might get a lot larger. So those
  • 01:44:30
    are the two real NPRRs. We're trying to figure out who would put those
  • 01:44:34
    forward and be responsible for them. And I do know that
  • 01:44:38
    Mark, you know, Mark had a little bit of an update
  • 01:44:42
    about someone and maybe requesting
  • 01:44:46
    ICCP data for ESR. So I
  • 01:44:50
    just kind of want to be quick in that in time. Right. So if we
  • 01:44:53
    have questions, that's kind of the short skinny on
  • 01:44:56
    really what we're thinking about from a 4CP standpoint.
  • 01:45:00
    That's very good. Thank you for that summary
  • 01:45:03
    and update. I know this is caused a
  • 01:45:07
    lot of questions. Mark is in the room. Mark,
  • 01:45:10
    you have some comments. Yeah,
  • 01:45:13
    so I've been.
  • 01:45:17
    I've kind of gotten more engaged in this issue the last few
  • 01:45:20
    days. So there's a few things to update based on what
  • 01:45:24
    Nathan said here. First of all, let me go to the item number
  • 01:45:28
    two, just so everybody's aware, that probably would
  • 01:45:32
    be a lot more difficult to implement because the wholesale storage
  • 01:45:35
    load,
  • 01:45:39
    the calculation for the 4CP, that includes the wholesale storage
  • 01:45:43
    load is rolled up in PUC rule.
  • 01:45:46
    So it seems like you'd have to have a rule change to go that route.
  • 01:45:51
    So going back then to the first one,
  • 01:45:54
    there was a market participant that had filed an SCR
  • 01:45:57
    with ERCOT to make wholesale storage, to request
  • 01:46:01
    wholesale storage load to be provided through ICCP.
  • 01:46:04
    That's kind of where I got involved in working
  • 01:46:08
    through it. Here's some of the things that we determined and
  • 01:46:12
    giving feedback to this stakeholder.
  • 01:46:16
    We requested that they withdraw their SCR and,
  • 01:46:20
    and put it in the form of an NPRR. And we've actually
  • 01:46:24
    provided a draft NPRR back to them and they've. They filed it.
  • 01:46:27
    So it should be hitting the stakeholder process then for discussion
  • 01:46:31
    here shortly. I assume it'll go to prs, maybe even.
  • 01:46:34
    Even this month. But here's the thing I wanted
  • 01:46:38
    to make sure everybody was aware, we,
  • 01:46:41
    ERCOT does not have. I mean, the ideal piece of information everybody's looking for
  • 01:46:45
    is wholesale storage load. We do not have the
  • 01:46:50
    true definition of wholesale storage load coming
  • 01:46:56
    in through live telemetry.
  • 01:46:59
    That is a calculation that's done after the fact for settlement purposes.
  • 01:47:03
    But what we do have, and people are aware of the
  • 01:47:07
    energy storage resource dashboard on ERCOT's website,
  • 01:47:11
    is we have energy storage resource charging.
  • 01:47:15
    That's part of that dashboard. Now,
  • 01:47:18
    right now, it looks like,
  • 01:47:21
    from what I've been able to determine, is the energy
  • 01:47:25
    storage resource charging looks
  • 01:47:29
    to be the same as what you would. It includes,
  • 01:47:33
    let me put it this way, by definition of the wholesale storage load,
  • 01:47:37
    all of that is energy storage resources.
  • 01:47:40
    Currently. Doesn't mean in the future, though, it's going to be entirely energy
  • 01:47:43
    storage resources. So the
  • 01:47:46
    recommendation that we gave back to the market participant and
  • 01:47:50
    included in the NPRR is to make the energy
  • 01:47:54
    storage resource information that we do have,
  • 01:47:57
    the charging load, make that available through
  • 01:48:01
    ICCP. And that would be a proxy of what market participants
  • 01:48:06
    would expect for wholesale storage load so
  • 01:48:09
    they can do their appropriate evaluations when trying to
  • 01:48:13
    do a back of the envelope determination if it's
  • 01:48:16
    going to be a 4CP, if 4CP is coming up or potential
  • 01:48:20
    or not. That's kind of the update I had.
  • 01:48:23
    Okay, Bryan? Yeah, Mark,
  • 01:48:26
    just agree with what you're saying. It feels
  • 01:48:30
    like having access to that real time data is a lot more useful
  • 01:48:34
    than daily extract posted after the fact,
  • 01:48:37
    because by then, it's too late. So I
  • 01:48:42
    think, directionally, you all are headed the right way with making their real
  • 01:48:45
    time stuff available. Thank you.
  • 01:48:50
    Okay, any other questions?
  • 01:48:55
    I just have a. Just because I'm curious,
  • 01:48:58
    why did ERCOT consider filing the NPRR,
  • 01:49:02
    rather than the market participant, letting them do it?
  • 01:49:06
    Have you all thought about taking this as something you all would support
  • 01:49:10
    and sponsor?
  • 01:49:15
    I'm not aware of ERCOT initially
  • 01:49:19
    taking the lead to do that. I'll just be honest. I'm not aware of that.
  • 01:49:23
    Just curious. All right. Any other questions or
  • 01:49:26
    comments? Anything else, Nathan?
  • 01:49:31
    No, we're good. Like I said, I don't want to stand in the way.
  • 01:49:34
    I want it to be short and sweet. No, you're great.
  • 01:49:37
    Thank you for your report and for your work
  • 01:49:41
    on this. I show it's time for a break and it's
  • 01:49:45
    11:20. So let's be back at 11:30 and
  • 01:49:48
    we'll get started. Thank you.
  • 02:00:08
    All right, let's take our seats. I'll give folks a
  • 02:00:11
    minute and we'll get started.
  • 02:00:40
    All right, we're going to get started. We got item eight, resource cost working group.
  • 02:00:44
    Kiran Sidhu, are you on the line?
  • 02:00:47
    Yes. Great.
  • Item 8 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Nathaniel Mancha - Kiran Sidhu
    02:00:52
    Hi, this is Kiran from Rwe.
  • 02:00:55
    I'm presenting in. I don't know if you can get a little closer
  • 02:00:58
    to the mic. We're having a hard time hearing you. Okay, sorry. Can you hear
  • 02:01:01
    me now? I think that's better. Go ahead.
  • 02:01:05
    Okay. Sorry. I'm in Chicago, I'm traveling,
  • 02:01:08
    so I'm presenting on behalf of Blake.
  • 02:01:12
    I'm a vice chair for the RCWG group. So if
  • 02:01:15
    we can go to the first slide. Yes, thank you. So Vistra presented
  • 02:01:19
    the draft comments to VCMRR042, which is a verifiable
  • 02:01:24
    cost manual revision request. And what basically it entails is
  • 02:01:27
    the SOx and NOx emission prices. So it allows
  • 02:01:30
    for seasonal index pricing from effective months
  • 02:01:34
    of May to September and annual index pricing for effective months
  • 02:01:38
    October to April. The new concept for ERCOT's monthly
  • 02:01:41
    calculation process for the effective month
  • 02:01:45
    pricing, ERCOT would take an average for the first 15 days of the prior
  • 02:01:48
    month. According to the pricing scheme that VCMRR
  • 02:01:52
    is present based on. Seasonal pricing would start at
  • 02:01:55
    about 800 or $50 a short time, and any monthly adjustments
  • 02:01:59
    would be paused and remain constant when
  • 02:02:02
    calculated. Averages breach plus -10%
  • 02:02:06
    threshold. So gray box language was added to accommodate how the
  • 02:02:10
    process will change when ERCOT is able to automate. This methodology
  • 02:02:17
    would like clarity on exactly how their manual and automated processes
  • 02:02:21
    would work. Before determining if additional language is needed,
  • 02:02:25
    Vistra and ERCOT, they will meet
  • 02:02:29
    offline to discuss more detail about it. If you can go to the
  • 02:02:32
    next slide, please hold on. Before you move,
  • 02:02:36
    did we have any comments on that slide? Katie, I saw you coming
  • 02:02:39
    to the mic. It partly came up because I saw Ino come
  • 02:02:43
    up, but I was just going to. I do have that
  • 02:02:46
    effect. I was partially
  • 02:02:50
    going to say, like, we've kind of. We've gone back, we've had a great meeting
  • 02:02:53
    on this one, and we are working on language, and we will start submitting that
  • 02:02:57
    over to Ino, and then hopefully we can
  • 02:03:01
    get ready to come back to an RCWG with no surprises.
  • 02:03:05
    Right. So I just want to add to what Katie was saying, if I may.
  • 02:03:09
    Whatever you see on the screen, probably not going to be. See that
  • 02:03:13
    again, correct. Okay,
  • 02:03:16
    great update. Okay, go ahead, Karan. All right,
  • 02:03:20
    if you can go to the next slide, you know, should I even present the
  • 02:03:22
    next slide?
  • 02:03:26
    So this represented the new concept for emission cost recovery.
  • 02:03:30
    In the instance that QSA runs out of
  • 02:03:34
    emission credits and they must have to buy additional credits from the market.
  • 02:03:38
    The purchases for these credits are not currently covered under the
  • 02:03:42
    verifiable cost manual. The new recovery would
  • 02:03:46
    be dispute based after the fact, documentation would be required
  • 02:03:49
    and any eligible recovery would be uplifted to load on an LRS basis.
  • 02:03:54
    Comes from. The group expressed a desire to modify the language to disincentivize
  • 02:03:59
    over the procurement and to only credit what was actually consumed.
  • 02:04:05
    Has requested additional clarity on the procedure and I, as Katie
  • 02:04:08
    and Ian just mentioned, they've already had a good meeting.
  • 02:04:12
    So the language to work on the language
  • 02:04:16
    updates and. Okay,
  • 02:04:19
    Katie, do you have an update on that?
  • 02:04:22
    Yes, we also discussed this one. We're going back to the drawing board.
  • 02:04:25
    You can scratch what's on this slide. Okay. We are looking at a couple of
  • 02:04:29
    other options that seem more amenable to you. Very good.
  • 02:04:35
    Okay. Nice slide though. I appreciate
  • 02:04:39
    the work that went into that.
  • 02:04:43
    And the next slide is basically the October meeting. Date is pending
  • 02:04:47
    progress of the discussion outlined in the previous slides.
  • 02:04:50
    So you should have a new October meeting
  • 02:04:53
    happening. Decided on the date coming soon.
  • 02:04:58
    Great. Any questions or comments?
  • 02:05:02
    Thank you so much for that report. Very good. Next we have
  • 02:05:06
    Kevin Hanson with the supply analysis working group making
  • 02:05:10
    sure you guys can hear me okay. Yes sir. Very good.
  • 02:05:14
    Brittany, if you pull up slides. Thank you very much. Next slide please.
  • Item 9 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson
    02:05:19
    So last month we had about six items on the
  • 02:05:23
    agenda. First off, Pete Warren,
  • 02:05:27
    we have a presentation on the CONE Peaker net margin threshold draft
  • 02:05:31
    NPRR discussion in which ERCOT mentioned
  • 02:05:34
    that they'll bring back to SAWG after the 8/29
  • 02:05:38
    PUC open meeting. The other item from
  • 02:05:41
    that discussion was the PUC adopted $140 kw year
  • 02:05:45
    as a CONE to use replying studies based on a frame CT reference
  • Item 12.6 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG and WMWG
    02:05:49
    technology. Next up, Katie Richest wrought
  • 02:05:53
    up discussion on NPRR1235,
  • 02:05:57
    the Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service, a standalone ancillary
  • 02:06:00
    service. ERCOT has planned
  • 02:06:04
    to bring additional language to allow storage participating DRRS.
  • 02:06:07
    Ryan King mentioned that from ERCOT mentioned that prs will
  • 02:06:13
    ask prs for direction on phase two.
  • 02:06:17
    Katie Rich requested that the the NPRR1235
  • 02:06:21
    come back next month. That's slide for further discussion.
  • 02:06:25
    Next up, Dan Mantina from ERCOT
  • 02:06:29
    gave a really good presentation on summer drought risk update followed
  • 02:06:34
    by that Pete Warkin short
  • 02:06:38
    discussion on the reliability standard update and discussed that
  • 02:06:42
    the presentation on this issue was filed at the PUC.
  • 02:06:47
    Next up, we had some discussions on the
  • 02:06:50
    Quone volume studies by Pete ERCOT
  • 02:06:56
    filed their filed brattles volume study with the PC
  • 02:07:00
    on August 22 ERCOT proposed
  • 02:07:04
    35,000 for studies for volume.
  • 02:07:08
    Initially proposed 30,000 for volume.
  • 02:07:11
    Actually, at the open meeting, they finally came. The PUC adopted the $35,000
  • 02:07:15
    price for volume for planning studies. Next slide, please.
  • 02:07:24
    Next up, we discussed the December
  • 02:07:28
    2024 CDR planning process, or planning
  • 02:07:33
    with Pete Warkin.
  • 02:07:37
    As was discussed, ERCOT board approved NPRR1219 makes
  • 02:07:43
    the expectations. The PUC
  • 02:07:46
    will be approving NPRR1219 in September.
  • 02:07:50
    The plan right now is that there will be percussion,
  • 02:07:54
    be adding spring fall supplemental tabs which be added to the CTR
  • 02:07:58
    beginning in May of 2025.
  • 02:08:02
    So it was mentioned that there's going to be an ELCC stay for storage
  • 02:08:06
    somewhere between early to mid October. And we should expect a
  • 02:08:10
    new NPRR with the ELCC for thermal resources to be developed by ERCOT
  • 02:08:14
    as well. Business.
  • 02:08:19
    Pete Warkin mentioned that they're going to be getting.
  • 02:08:22
    They're changing providers who are developing the solar
  • 02:08:25
    wind shapes, and they're discussing
  • 02:08:29
    that once they come to identify the new company,
  • 02:08:32
    they'll be. Will announce that as well.
  • 02:08:36
    Next meeting is going to be. Is going to be in October. The September
  • 02:08:40
    27 meeting will be canceled for now. Any questions?
  • 02:08:46
    Okay, great report. Any questions for
  • 02:08:49
    Kevin? I see David Dalitsch in the. In the queue. David?
  • 02:08:54
    Yeah. Hello. Do you mind reminding me on 1235,
  • 02:08:59
    why, what needs to be discussed at Saag some more?
  • 02:09:09
    Kevin, we have Katie in the room. Yeah, I'll let Katie address that.
  • 02:09:13
    Katie, address. Okay, Katie? Yeah, thanks. So, I mean,
  • 02:09:16
    his bullet points are maybe a little bit confusing because
  • 02:09:20
    there were folks talking about inclusion of ESRs, but we
  • 02:09:23
    originally asked that it be brought to SAWG to see
  • 02:09:27
    how it fit into resource adequacy. And so we wanted
  • 02:09:31
    it tabled so that we could see how the last open meeting
  • 02:09:35
    went. There were a lot of decisions made at that meeting and so we would
  • 02:09:38
    like to bring this issue back up to discuss that some more.
  • 02:09:46
    Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you for the update.
  • 02:09:50
    Anything else? All right,
  • 02:09:54
    Kevin, great job, as usual. Thank you. Thank you.
  • Item 10 - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
    02:09:57
    Let's move on to item ten. WMS revision request tabled
  • 02:10:01
    at WMS. I believe both of these can
  • 02:10:07
    remain tabled. I did follow up. Just.
  • Item 10.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG
    02:10:09
    SMOGRR028, has been sort of sitting out
  • 02:10:13
    for a while. It's been at MWG. MWG has not met in a
  • 02:10:17
    while. So I did. I did reach out just to see.
  • 02:10:21
    And my understanding is ERCOT is still working on comments that
  • 02:10:25
    it's rather technical routine
  • 02:10:30
    that they're having to go through, but that.
  • 02:10:35
    But that's the reason that this is not moved
  • 02:10:39
    is what I understand. So I don't know if anyone has any different
  • 02:10:43
    updates on that. But we will keep
  • 02:10:47
    this table to the MWG. And I've asked MWG leadership to quorum
  • 02:10:53
    a meeting when they, when they get something they can discuss.
  • Item 10.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG
    02:10:57
    And then we heard about VCMRR042 and that
  • 02:11:02
    there's some language being developed and they'll discuss that at RCWG.
  • 02:11:06
    Any, any questions
  • 02:11:09
    or comments on this, these items?
  • Item 11 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey
    02:11:14
    The next is item eleven, new protocol
  • 02:11:17
    revision subcommittee referrals.
  • Item 11.1 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
    02:11:21
    And we have one NPRR1241,
  • 02:11:24
    firm fuel supply, service availability and
  • 02:11:28
    hourly standby fee. I don't
  • 02:11:32
    know if there's anyone that could give us a quick
  • 02:11:35
    summary or overview.
  • 02:11:39
    Katie, go ahead.
  • 02:11:42
    Thanks. So I thought Amanda did a good job laying
  • 02:11:46
    it out and also represented our request well, that that
  • 02:11:50
    get formally referred over to WMWG.
  • 02:11:54
    But, you know, based on looking at the last couple
  • 02:11:58
    seasons of the berm fuel deployment, Luminant has noticed a need
  • 02:12:01
    for further refinement of the clawback and or
  • 02:12:05
    withholding amounts. So we really are talking
  • 02:12:08
    about this proportionality criteria where
  • 02:12:12
    we're changing the maximum clawback for unavailability.
  • 02:12:17
    And so in some cases that increases it
  • 02:12:20
    over ERCOT's current 90 day reduction,
  • 02:12:24
    but also reduces its down if a resource
  • 02:12:28
    is available for 10% or less of
  • 02:12:31
    the time. And so we think this
  • 02:12:35
    NPRR is lining performance incentives with respective risk
  • 02:12:39
    and would ask that we continue those discussions with
  • 02:12:43
    ERCOT and at WMWG.
  • 02:12:46
    Okay, any discussion or comments?
  • 02:12:51
    I'd like to see if there's any opposition to adding this
  • 02:12:54
    to our combo ballot to table and referred to.
  • 02:12:58
    Oh, and did you have.
  • 02:13:01
    Yeah, we would suggest that we table
  • 02:13:05
    and refer this to WMWG and allow
  • 02:13:08
    them to continue their discussions that they started last month.
  • 02:13:14
    Any, any opposition or concern.
  • 02:13:18
    Great. All right.
  • 02:13:22
    We are getting way ahead of schedule, so good job.
  • Item 12 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
    02:13:27
    Item twelve is our list of revision requests
  • 02:13:31
    tabled at PRS and referred to WMS.
  • 02:13:38
    Yes. Oh, sorry.
  • Item 12.7 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG
    02:13:42
    Yeah. Jodan from golden spread electric cooperative. And since
  • 02:13:45
    we just discussed NPRR1238, nothing needing
  • 02:13:49
    to stay in the WMWG. It was, it was.
  • 02:13:54
    I guess it needs. Needs to be up for approval for WMS, whether it's this
  • 02:13:58
    month or next month. But we'd like to try to keep some urgency on that
  • 02:14:00
    one. While we've removed the urgency status, we still really need that one to try
  • 02:14:05
    to collect at the PRS and large load task,
  • 02:14:09
    a large flexible load task force, if there's any discussions there so we can try
  • 02:14:12
    to move that forward. My understanding is there trying to match it up with 1234.
  • 02:14:17
    And so trying to move this one kind of out of the weeds would be
  • 02:14:20
    pretty helpful. So if we could consider that, whether it's
  • 02:14:23
    either in this meeting or the next month meeting, I'd like to throw
  • 02:14:27
    that out there.
  • 02:14:30
    Okay.
  • 02:14:35
    Does anyone have any comments or response
  • 02:14:41
    to the request?
  • 02:14:48
    So this is currently tabled at WMWG.
  • 02:14:56
    Did ROS. ROS approve this? Right,
  • 02:15:01
    so ROS is still looking at this at OWG.
  • 02:15:04
    Ow. Okay. But there have been no.
  • 02:15:07
    So with Luminant removing the ORDC
  • 02:15:11
    discussion for WMWG, that was the only reason for the referral
  • 02:15:15
    there. So if we approved it at WMS,
  • 02:15:18
    you know, it still has to work its way through ROS. But it's currently being
  • 02:15:22
    discussed at OWG. So there's just one working group.
  • 02:15:26
    And so, Jodan, are you, are you asking that,
  • 02:15:32
    that we bring this up at least by next month and
  • 02:15:36
    ask WMWG to finish their discussions? Is that.
  • 02:15:40
    Well, I think the discussions may be finished there. I hate to speak for all
  • 02:15:43
    the folks there at that moment, but for, for the ORDC discussion, it was,
  • 02:15:46
    was completed at WMWG,
  • 02:15:49
    particularly because of the real time co optimization timing, I think was
  • 02:15:53
    where that came from. So they dropped, you know, their concerns from luminous
  • 02:15:57
    perspective for that I. On that one. So, yeah, it would now, in my mind,
  • 02:16:00
    come back up to WMS for approval and need to
  • 02:16:04
    move back to PRS. Okay, so there's no additional
  • 02:16:08
    language that laminates planning to
  • 02:16:11
    breathe. That's correct. We kind of ran this to ground and once we heard
  • 02:16:15
    from ERCOT staff that the implementation timeline for
  • 02:16:18
    this would be after RTC.
  • 02:16:21
    Obviously, ORDC is going away. And we feel like at that point, the RDP
  • 02:16:25
    kind of functions as the RDPA and ORDC would. So it covers
  • 02:16:29
    our issue. Okay, that helped. I had, my notes were that
  • 02:16:33
    you were bringing some language back so that. Yeah, wasn't looking
  • 02:16:37
    at. I was, I wasn't looking at the fun of looking at the RTL o
  • 02:16:40
    cap and changing those settlement formulas. But now I don't
  • 02:16:43
    have to. So I'm good. Okay,
  • 02:16:46
    so with that, is there a motion or not?
  • 02:16:50
    Maybe we don't want to say motion, right? We just. Brittany,
  • 02:16:55
    I just. If y'all were about to move on this,
  • 02:16:59
    there are other Oncor comments. I didn't know if that was included
  • 02:17:02
    in your consideration for 1238.
  • 02:17:07
    Is there someone from Oncor that can. Yeah, Martha's there from,
  • 02:17:10
    from the ROS chair position. We are discussing those over at OWG.
  • 02:17:23
    Hey, Eric, this is Ivan. I can talk about our comments. I guess
  • 02:17:28
    the question that I had. Is. Was there any
  • 02:17:32
    other comments that ERCOT was
  • 02:17:35
    considering submitting on this
  • 02:17:39
    NPRR?
  • 02:17:46
    Matt? Do you know, Matt's not aware of.
  • 02:17:49
    Is there anyone from ERCOT that would know if there's comments being
  • 02:17:53
    contemplated?
  • 02:18:03
    Doesn't sound like we have an affirmative
  • 02:18:07
    yes or no. So, yeah, no,
  • 02:18:10
    I'm happy to cover our comments. So we submitted these comments
  • 02:18:14
    to, basically, I think the key items here were to include
  • 02:18:19
    the interconnecting TDSPs as
  • 02:18:23
    a party to the VECL registration.
  • 02:18:26
    I think the key point here is that the to is going to have the
  • 02:18:29
    responsibility to disconnect
  • 02:18:33
    if there's a VECL. There's a failure to respond to the curtailment
  • 02:18:36
    instruction. And so we wanted to have the.
  • 02:18:40
    To ddsps to be a relevant party to those agreements.
  • 02:18:44
    And then there was also some minor cleanup
  • 02:18:48
    on the changing of reducing consumption instead of ceasing consumption,
  • 02:18:53
    which was potential action here that
  • 02:18:57
    could potentially be taken as a part of a VECL instruction.
  • 02:19:06
    Okay, so it sounds like, does anyone have any
  • 02:19:10
    questions or concerns about those changes?
  • 02:19:15
    That's straightforward. Yes. Trevor?
  • 02:19:19
    Yeah. So I don't, I don't want to hijack this, turn this into an OWG
  • 02:19:23
    meeting, but we do appreciate the urgency. I think our team does have some
  • 02:19:27
    things we'd like to think through. We're still thinking through some of the language here.
  • 02:19:30
    We're happy to do that on the OWG side, though. So I don't think
  • 02:19:33
    we have any issues with advancing this on from a WMS
  • 02:19:37
    perspective, but. Okay,
  • 02:19:41
    Jody. Yeah, appreciate that. And, you know, some of these
  • 02:19:45
    things we can continue to work out in OWG, for sure. So we'd be amenable
  • 02:19:48
    to discussions there still, as well as the large flexible load task
  • 02:19:52
    force, I believe that there, ERCOT could be creating comments. I hate to
  • 02:19:56
    speak for them, because I know no one did earlier, but it seemed like there
  • 02:19:58
    was some consideration that maybe at the. At that next
  • 02:20:03
    large, large flexible door, I think they've. They've hibernated.
  • 02:20:07
    That's what I've heard. So I'm trying to figure out where that goes next.
  • 02:20:09
    Maybe it just flows back here. So that kind of confused me, because they.
  • 02:20:12
    We did have that discussion, what, just a week ago on
  • 02:20:17
    1130. 1238. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. 1238. Yeah,
  • 02:20:22
    1238 was in line with what LFL talked about
  • 02:20:26
    at the very beginning. Sure. I think we
  • 02:20:31
    kind of blessed it, and we don't have a voting
  • 02:20:34
    structure, but there were no objections.
  • 02:20:37
    1238 in LFL.
  • 02:20:41
    Okay. For those on the phone, we had Mister Bob Wittmeyer
  • 02:20:46
    opining that LFLTF didn't
  • 02:20:50
    have a formal vote, but didn't have an objection. So it feels
  • 02:20:53
    like it would have been supported.
  • 02:21:00
    Nabaraj, you're in the queue. Nabaraj, go ahead.
  • 02:21:04
    So, just wanted to see what's ERCOT's thought on this.
  • 02:21:08
    They haven't filed anything or have spoken, so want
  • 02:21:12
    to see their perspective.
  • 02:21:18
    Yeah. We can reach out for a few minutes here and see if we can
  • 02:21:21
    get someone on the line. I don't. Sorry, I don't have the right people in
  • 02:21:23
    the room possibly, for this. Okay. Otherwise,
  • 02:21:27
    I think then it is better
  • 02:21:31
    to table where it is. That makes more sense.
  • 02:21:34
    Thank you. Okay. You're saying you would remain tabled?
  • 02:21:38
    Yeah. Okay. All right,
  • 02:21:42
    let's.
  • 02:21:45
    Yeah, we don't have to take any action. If it remains tabled,
  • 02:21:50
    we could take the WMSWG off.
  • 02:21:57
    Why don't we go through some of these other items and if we get someone
  • 02:22:00
    else from ERCOT that can give us the information, we can.
  • 02:22:05
    We can move on that. Um. Let's go back to the top.
  • Item 12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
    02:22:09
    I don't believe anything new
  • 02:22:12
    on NPRR1070 or,
  • Item 12.2 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG
    02:22:15
    uh, NPRR1200 MWG is not met.
  • Item 12.3 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG
    02:22:20
    NPRR1202 is the item that Bob
  • 02:22:24
    mentioned in his report. Um,
  • 02:22:27
    and that LFLTF has. Has hibernated.
  • 02:22:31
    Um, it had been my understanding we were
  • 02:22:35
    waiting on them.
  • 02:22:37
    WMSWG, I believe, has. Has performed
  • 02:22:41
    all of the actions they know to
  • 02:22:44
    take. I think we were. We would
  • 02:22:49
    suggest that we just table. Keep this tabled at WMS
  • 02:22:54
    and, you know, take off the WMSWG
  • 02:23:00
    from the list and await the comments that
  • 02:23:04
    we're expecting from. From different parties.
  • 02:23:07
    Does that sound like a plan?
  • 02:23:09
    Okay. And then does
  • 02:23:13
    that require. We don't require a vote, do we?
  • Item 12.4 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG
    02:23:15
    Okay. NPRR1214 is
  • 02:23:24
    believe that is still at CMWG.
  • Item 12.5 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG
    02:23:28
    And NPRR1229
  • 02:23:37
    is the. Is the item that Amanda mentioned that
  • 02:23:41
    we might want to discuss with TAC to
  • 02:23:46
    move forward as a policy decision that at
  • 02:23:50
    the PUC, because of some of the
  • 02:23:53
    policy questions that this has raised,
  • 02:23:58
    I just. I wanted to see if members
  • 02:24:02
    have any. Any comments or opinions on whether
  • 02:24:07
    we want to try to do that or,
  • 02:24:11
    you know, one thought I had, and it may not sound
  • 02:24:14
    as pleasant, but one thought would be to deny the request
  • 02:24:19
    and allow an appeal to be made to the
  • 02:24:23
    commission on the policy issue.
  • 02:24:26
    And we could. We could then get that
  • 02:24:30
    before the commission through, you know, more of a formal
  • 02:24:33
    process than we've used before. I'm not really sure what.
  • 02:24:37
    What kind of process we would use.
  • 02:24:41
    I don't know what TAC would do if they would give a report, you know,
  • 02:24:44
    send a letter to the commission. I'm not sure what's being contemplated.
  • 02:24:47
    So Bryan, go ahead.
  • 02:24:52
    I would be interested to hear from stack if they've gone in to
  • 02:24:56
    visit with commissioners and if there's already been some briefing from
  • 02:25:01
    them to the commission on this issue. Okay. And I see Lucas is
  • 02:25:05
    in the queue. Lucas, you want to speak to that? Hello,
  • 02:25:10
    I know there hasn't been Bryan,
  • 02:25:15
    I have been working with Ino on
  • 02:25:18
    some comments and so I was hopeful that maybe
  • 02:25:22
    once I got those comments out, I don't know if they'll address
  • 02:25:26
    each and every question that Ino had,
  • 02:25:30
    but they will address some of them,
  • 02:25:35
    the bulk of them. There could be some
  • 02:25:39
    outstanding. I'm not going to say there wouldn't be, but just
  • 02:25:42
    kind of want to get that done.
  • 02:25:46
    Didn't want to have multiple iterations of
  • 02:25:50
    comments to get some of the equations right.
  • 02:25:54
    So I was just waiting on a little feedback on that, but have
  • 02:25:57
    comments that touch on some of those, many of
  • 02:26:01
    those questions that, you know, laid out for WMS,
  • 02:26:03
    WMWG and I, and plan to get those out
  • 02:26:08
    as soon as I can.
  • 02:26:12
    But again, to answer directly to your
  • 02:26:15
    question on outreach on the policy questions,
  • 02:26:19
    that would be a no. Thank you. Thank you,
  • 02:26:23
    Ino.
  • 02:26:28
    Thank you. Eric Lucas is right,
  • 02:26:31
    has been communicating with us and clarifying
  • 02:26:35
    some of the language we
  • 02:26:39
    provided stack some recommendations.
  • 02:26:43
    But clearly this does not necessarily mean that ERCOT supports
  • 02:26:48
    the concepts being laid out in the NPRR.
  • 02:26:55
    I think most of you have seen or at least heard about that.
  • 02:26:59
    ERCOT posted a policy
  • 02:27:02
    questions for WMWG. I did not receive
  • 02:27:06
    answers from anyone on those answers on those questions.
  • 02:27:12
    Stack did reach out to us in private, but nothing
  • 02:27:15
    was posted. Unfortunately, there was not
  • 02:27:20
    to my liking. A lot of discussion at WMWG that addresses
  • 02:27:24
    the issues that we raise
  • 02:27:28
    and I'm not even sure people are going to be able to answer those questions
  • 02:27:32
    at the next WMWG. And I believe Steve really
  • 02:27:36
    said, well, maybe this needs to be raised to the tech level,
  • 02:27:40
    which might not be a bad idea.
  • 02:27:43
    There's some significant policy questions that market
  • 02:27:47
    stakeholders, I'm going to say stakeholders meaning WMS
  • 02:27:51
    that board of directors and everybody else might need to answer.
  • 02:27:57
    Fixing an equation is easy. The policy questions are
  • 02:28:01
    more difficult and more challenges to address.
  • 02:28:04
    One of them is, for example,
  • 02:28:08
    if ERCOT imposes a CMP on a particular generator,
  • 02:28:12
    maybe at that time their I might be a
  • 02:28:16
    good reason to compensate them when they trip offline.
  • 02:28:20
    But if the entity agrees to a CMP,
  • 02:28:25
    should they also receive compensation when the unit trips? Offline compensation.
  • 02:28:30
    I really mean recovery damage costs.
  • 02:28:34
    So there's also the
  • 02:28:37
    issue of opportunity costs, or do
  • 02:28:41
    you get paid for opportunity costs? And I know that Lucas has
  • 02:28:45
    some cap on number of days,
  • 02:28:48
    and I'll let him talk about that. But do
  • 02:28:52
    you even pay for any opportunity costs? So there's
  • 02:28:56
    some real issues that probably will need to
  • 02:29:00
    discuss. And honestly, we cannot,
  • 02:29:03
    ERCOT cannot help clarify the NPRR unless we.
  • 02:29:07
    We get answers to those policy questions in a meaningful way.
  • 02:29:12
    And I think that's all I want to say. Fred is here. I'm not sure
  • 02:29:15
    you want to say something. No, thanks. Thank you.
  • 02:29:18
    Ino.
  • 02:29:25
    Brittany's in the queue for a different matter.
  • 02:29:30
    So what's the desire of the WMS?
  • 02:29:39
    Like I said, most of in my history, when we've
  • 02:29:43
    come up against a policy question that we didn't think either
  • 02:29:47
    was clear in the policy or especially if it
  • 02:29:50
    violated the policy, we would
  • 02:29:54
    deny them the request. And that could be appealed up
  • 02:29:58
    to the. To the board and to the commission.
  • 02:30:03
    And I'm familiar
  • 02:30:06
    with that process. I don't.
  • 02:30:10
    You know, I think we're all trying to follow the policy.
  • 02:30:13
    That's our number one hierarchy is
  • 02:30:17
    to follow the policy. And if it's not clear, I think
  • 02:30:21
    it's right to get that before the policymakers and let them
  • 02:30:24
    set the. Set the lines. And it's been discussed at the PUC,
  • 02:30:28
    it's been discussed at the board that, you know,
  • 02:30:31
    that's where everything gets driven is from that level down.
  • 02:30:35
    And we should try to stay within
  • 02:30:41
    that as much as we can. So that would be
  • 02:30:45
    my preference, but I'd also be willing to let it discuss,
  • 02:30:49
    you know, further at WMWG if there was some other.
  • 02:30:53
    Some other options that folks might want to pursue.
  • 02:30:56
    Bryan, I'm fine with
  • 02:31:00
    the path that you laid out. I also would
  • 02:31:04
    like to hear from Lucas if he feels like another month
  • 02:31:07
    to talk about this from. With commission staff or even
  • 02:31:11
    to get on the commissioner calendars to get
  • 02:31:16
    some feedback would be beneficial for them.
  • 02:31:20
    I also am supportive
  • 02:31:25
    of some of the concerns that
  • 02:31:29
    STEC has, and so whatever is the most expeditious
  • 02:31:33
    way to get this resolved, a favor. But I
  • 02:31:37
    just think they probably would benefit from a little more time before we
  • 02:31:41
    go the route you're suggesting.
  • 02:31:46
    Lucas, before we go to Navaraj, do you have any response to Bryan?
  • 02:31:52
    Just a few words that I
  • 02:31:56
    agree with what, you know, has mentioned,
  • 02:32:00
    and I'm not much familiar with
  • 02:32:04
    this particular NPRR, but I talked with Eric this
  • 02:32:08
    morning and he told
  • 02:32:12
    me that he's planning to file a comment sometimes
  • 02:32:16
    later this week or so. So he asked
  • 02:32:20
    me if it is we can table it. Table it or
  • 02:32:25
    that's the best way to go.
  • 02:32:28
    Yeah, that's what he told me to do it.
  • 02:32:32
    Okay. So you prefer we table for
  • 02:32:35
    now? Yeah, it's helpful.
  • 02:32:38
    Okay. Do you have anything else you want to add? No,
  • 02:32:43
    just that appreciate some patience
  • 02:32:47
    with the last two commenters with the table.
  • 02:32:51
    Working on it. Those policy questions,
  • 02:32:55
    I don't know if we're as far apart as
  • 02:32:58
    it seems or that I envision, I guess. And so
  • 02:33:02
    I was, you know,
  • 02:33:06
    there still might be an outstanding question
  • 02:33:09
    that we need to run the ground and we'll work to
  • 02:33:13
    do that. But I know, I know many of those questions
  • 02:33:17
    will be, will be answered in the,
  • 02:33:21
    in the comments or I believe they will be.
  • 02:33:25
    And so I was appreciate another month if
  • 02:33:28
    you and some patience. But the
  • 02:33:33
    will of the group too, I guess can appreciate
  • 02:33:37
    that. Thank you. Lucas.
  • 02:33:41
    I'm not seeing anyone pushing for
  • 02:33:44
    a vote that's been discussed, but we
  • 02:33:48
    can table this another month. Let WMS discuss and we'll bring
  • 02:33:52
    this back next month. So thank you. All right,
  • 02:33:56
    1235, I believe we've discussed that that will
  • 02:34:00
    remain at SAG and I'm
  • 02:34:05
    sorry. Yes, Gordon. Thank you, mister chairman. I did
  • 02:34:08
    want to weigh in on 1235 and the sort
  • 02:34:13
    of the path that it's on. I understand that SAWG
  • 02:34:17
    does want to take up a discussion about the,
  • 02:34:21
    a potential tie to resource adequacy. I do want to point
  • 02:34:25
    to. 1235 is an NPRR we've had
  • 02:34:28
    out since the end of May. It's been discussed and endorsed at
  • 02:34:32
    ROS. It's been discussed and came out of the
  • 02:34:37
    discussion at WMS. We filed our
  • 02:34:40
    comments pointing to our plan for a two phased approach
  • 02:34:44
    on the first of all,
  • 02:34:47
    design of DRRS for offline only resources, which is described in
  • 02:34:51
    1235. And in our comments on 1235 pointed to
  • 02:34:55
    the second phase which will address the.
  • 02:34:58
    Ideally address the complexities associated with incorporating ESRs
  • 02:35:05
    into DRRS and working through that before the end of the year.
  • 02:35:12
    The conversation at SAWG, I think feels,
  • 02:35:16
    we feel that that is different than the
  • 02:35:20
    substance of what we captured in 1235
  • 02:35:23
    in terms of the mechanics of how we would develop DRRS.
  • 02:35:27
    And certainly want to continue to highlight
  • 02:35:32
    the sense of urgency that we have with moving forward. Perhaps not formal
  • 02:35:36
    urgency in the sense of urgent status of the pressing
  • 02:35:40
    need to move forward with DRRS given the mandate
  • 02:35:44
    from the legislature. And so I would want to at
  • 02:35:48
    least put forward that the, I think we've had the substantive discussion
  • 02:35:52
    on the content and merits of 1235 and
  • 02:35:56
    could see that in a position ready to move forward. But I'm glad to
  • 02:36:00
    see that Katie is back because I know that is the discussion
  • 02:36:03
    at SaWg that was important.
  • 02:36:07
    Yes, Katie, go ahead. Yeah, honestly, I thought we were coming back in
  • 02:36:10
    September, so I wouldn't have had that much of a delay.
  • 02:36:14
    I mean, it is very important to us. And I think we're looking at some
  • 02:36:17
    more analysis and putting, we were planning to put together a formal presentation.
  • 02:36:21
    So the fact that it's been delayed to October, I mean,
  • 02:36:24
    that's outside of our control. But it's still a very important discussion.
  • 02:36:27
    So we would still like to have that forum at SAWG.
  • 02:36:36
    So if just kind of
  • 02:36:40
    work backwards, what, what board meeting would you envision
  • 02:36:44
    this be optimally
  • 02:36:48
    appear in December? I still think we have even
  • 02:36:52
    beyond today at WMS if it were to go forward, it goes to
  • 02:36:56
    PRS. It has another, at least two opportunities at
  • 02:36:59
    PRS. So there's, there is still a
  • 02:37:04
    number of stages that it goes through in its review before it gets to
  • 02:37:08
    the board. And so I just want to make sure that as we're having
  • 02:37:11
    the conversations around NPRR1235 itself,
  • 02:37:15
    that we are speaking to the substantive
  • 02:37:19
    issues contained within the NPRR. And I
  • 02:37:23
    think that there is debate as to whether
  • 02:37:28
    DRRS does have or should have a tie
  • 02:37:31
    to resource adequacy. I think that,
  • 02:37:35
    again, is outside of the scope. So I may need some help on the
  • 02:37:39
    board dates. I don't have that top of
  • 02:37:42
    mind, but we still have an opportunity to continue the conversation.
  • 02:37:46
    If we endorse it today, that doesn't mean that it's a fait accompli and
  • 02:37:51
    kind of railroaded to the next. So there will be opportunities for us to continue
  • 02:37:54
    to, to discussion in different forums.
  • 02:37:57
    What do you think of that idea, Katie? That if we
  • 02:38:00
    endorse this today, we still have
  • 02:38:04
    the discussion at SAWG that you're presenting
  • 02:38:07
    and let PRS, and then any concerns
  • 02:38:11
    that come out of that or endorsements, you could bring that to PRS.
  • 02:38:15
    Would that work?
  • 02:38:25
    I had hoped this would move forward in a more orderly fashion.
  • 02:38:28
    So I mean,
  • 02:38:34
    I just want to make sure that our feedback is well taken. Again,
  • 02:38:38
    we were going to come prepared. It's outside of our
  • 02:38:41
    control that SAWG has now moved to October.
  • 02:38:44
    So I want to make sure that our comments are still fairly
  • 02:38:48
    considered. And if it needs to be taken into account
  • 02:38:52
    that we have a proper forum to do that.
  • 02:38:59
    I think that, Mister chairman, if I may,
  • 02:39:05
    we expect there to be a continued conversation on NPRR1235.
  • 02:39:10
    Some will have seen this morning that the IMM filed comments
  • 02:39:14
    on 1235 and have a specific reference to the tie
  • 02:39:19
    to resource adequacy. So I think that based
  • 02:39:22
    on that fact, though we can discuss
  • 02:39:25
    the content of 1235,
  • 02:39:30
    I would say that that conversations still should
  • 02:39:34
    be and will be had, and we'll have the opportunity to bring that to
  • 02:39:38
    prs in a subsequent, subsequent discussion.
  • 02:39:48
    Let's go to the queue. Michael Jewell, you're up.
  • 02:39:52
    Thank you, Mike. Check real fast. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.
  • 02:39:55
    Awesome. Thank you. So, Michael Jewell, on behalf of
  • 02:39:59
    joint commenters that have filed a couple of sets of comments with regard
  • 02:40:02
    to 1235 and continue to want to
  • 02:40:06
    highlight that ERCOT's focus on a mandate to implement DRRS
  • 02:40:11
    because of statutory language could and should
  • 02:40:14
    include the legislative intent as part of that statute
  • 02:40:18
    to have ESRs participate.
  • 02:40:21
    That is part of implementing the statute. And so we think that that is
  • 02:40:25
    something that does not need to be left behind.
  • 02:40:29
    We also are concerned that we continue to lack a substantive discussion
  • 02:40:33
    regarding the issues with regard to allowing ESRs
  • 02:40:36
    to participate. Thus far, the focus has been
  • 02:40:40
    that ERCOT made a decision that they wanted to implement with regard to offline
  • 02:40:45
    resources first. And that decision is what is being
  • 02:40:49
    pointed to is why ESRs cannot participate. At the same time,
  • 02:40:52
    ERCOT has made progress with regard to the implementation
  • 02:40:56
    of NOGRR040 to allow online CLRs
  • 02:41:00
    to provide offline nonspin. And so the work that has
  • 02:41:04
    been done there should be directly analogous for
  • 02:41:08
    online ECR ESRs to
  • 02:41:11
    be able to participate in DRRS
  • 02:41:15
    if it continues to be focused on an offline basis. The other thing
  • 02:41:19
    I'd say is this focus that has been raised with regard to the potential
  • 02:41:23
    for DRRS used as a tool
  • 02:41:27
    for resource adequacy absolutely highlights
  • 02:41:30
    the need for all dispatchable resources to be part
  • 02:41:33
    of DRRS, not just offline thermal
  • 02:41:37
    resources, if you're going to be looking at it, at a larger role
  • 02:41:40
    in that regard. So continue to really want
  • 02:41:44
    to focus on ESRs being participating, as that
  • 02:41:48
    is part of the legislative intent from the
  • 02:41:51
    legislature passing that statute. Thank you.
  • 02:41:56
    Thank you, Michael.
  • 02:41:59
    We'll get to the queue. I do want to highlight something Kevin Hanson,
  • 02:42:03
    who's the chair of SAWG, posted in chat.
  • 02:42:07
    If necessary, we can have SAWG on September 27 for only the
  • 02:42:12
    NPRR1235 discussion so we can have that in
  • 02:42:15
    our consideration. So, Gordon,
  • 02:42:20
    I wanted to reassure
  • 02:42:23
    stakeholders that we are working internally on
  • 02:42:27
    that second phase, NPRR, for the inclusion of ESRS.
  • 02:42:30
    I think it's premature at our. I point at this point to,
  • 02:42:33
    until that's developed, until we've had a chance to do a proper impact assessment to
  • 02:42:37
    talk about the implementation timeframe of the inclusion of ESRs.
  • 02:42:42
    But that is work that is actively underway, and we have committed to bring that
  • 02:42:46
    NPRR to stakeholder forums before the end of
  • 02:42:49
    the year. So that will be the appropriate form to make sure that
  • 02:42:53
    we have the substantive discussion on any of those complexities,
  • 02:42:57
    point to how ESRs could be integrated into DRRS,
  • 02:43:01
    and so that will provide the forum that I
  • 02:43:05
    believe is being asked for. Thank you,
  • 02:43:08
    Bryan.
  • 02:43:14
    I appreciate all the work that's gone into 1235.
  • 02:43:20
    Calpine has a vast fleet of,
  • 02:43:23
    of combined cycle resources that are really baseload. Gas resources
  • 02:43:27
    are typically online and would be excluded generally
  • 02:43:31
    from participating in this because of the online requirement.
  • 02:43:34
    One of the legislative requirements for this,
  • 02:43:38
    for DRRS is to reduce rucks and you can have an
  • 02:43:43
    online combined cycle or combined cycle that is
  • 02:43:47
    online and is rucked into another configuration to
  • 02:43:50
    add a capacity and still wouldn't be able to participate
  • 02:43:55
    in DRRS. So one
  • 02:43:59
    of the things we'd like to see is for the ability for online
  • 02:44:02
    combined cycle resources to participate. And just the
  • 02:44:06
    way it's structured right now,
  • 02:44:09
    we're not going to be able to participate. We were encouraged
  • 02:44:13
    that there was a phase two that sounded
  • 02:44:16
    like it was going to be released at the same time as phase
  • 02:44:20
    one. We got some clarification at the last,
  • 02:44:24
    I guess SAWG that that's not the case.
  • 02:44:27
    And so for that, for that
  • 02:44:31
    reason, we're opposed to the current
  • 02:44:35
    direction of DRRS and would like an opportunity
  • 02:44:38
    to allow for
  • 02:44:42
    online combined cycle resources to participate in this. And because
  • 02:44:46
    it's not going to be implemented until after RTC, we feel like there's still time
  • 02:44:49
    to work through that. Just, I wanted to articulate that comment
  • 02:44:52
    for you guys. Thank you. Thank you,
  • 02:44:56
    Bryan. Katie, I just
  • 02:45:00
    wanted to respond to what Kevin said. If he was going to do
  • 02:45:04
    a special SAWG for 1235,
  • 02:45:08
    is that fine? You know, we could come back in October,
  • 02:45:12
    do something at WMS. It could go to PRS. And then, I mean,
  • 02:45:15
    we're not losing that much time. And that gives us, that still gives us
  • 02:45:19
    that second discussion that we've been trying to prepare for.
  • 02:45:25
    Any, any comments or.
  • 02:45:29
    Yeah, happy to.
  • 02:45:33
    If that is going to be a
  • 02:45:37
    barrier to us moving forward, the desire to have that conversation,
  • 02:45:40
    I think this is a, a good faith gesture from SAWG to accelerate
  • 02:45:44
    that conversation.
  • 02:45:49
    I think we can accommodate that to the next meeting. Great.
  • 02:45:53
    Okay, I appreciate that very much.
  • 02:45:57
    Any other comments on this NPRR?
  • 02:46:01
    Okay, we will remain tabled and
  • 02:46:05
    bring this back next month.
  • 02:46:09
    1238, I believe we
  • 02:46:12
    have an update. Brittany. Thanks, Eric. Just to
  • 02:46:16
    close the question, there are comments
  • 02:46:20
    in development. Thank you.
  • 02:46:24
    Okay,
  • 02:46:27
    so any comments or questions further on this issue,
  • 02:46:34
    we will remain table there as well. So a
  • 02:46:39
    lot of good discussion. I don't guess we moved any of them forward, did we?
  • Item 13 - Major Transmission Elements - MTE - list - Vote - Rickey Floyd
    02:46:47
    All right, item 13, we have the major
  • 02:46:50
    transmission elements MTE list,
  • 02:46:53
    and a vote is contemplated.
  • 02:46:59
    Ricky. Floyd. Hey,
  • 02:47:02
    good afternoon. This is barely.
  • 02:47:08
    Are you any better now?
  • 02:47:13
    I think we can make it out. Go ahead. What about now? It's still
  • 02:47:17
    about the same.
  • 02:47:23
    Okay,
  • 02:47:28
    so at the last OWG meeting on October
  • 02:47:32
    15, OWG reviewed the updates
  • 02:47:36
    to the MTE list
  • 02:47:40
    as outlined in the methodology document.
  • 02:47:45
    Each TO presented their recommendations for removals
  • 02:47:48
    and edits to the items on the list.
  • 02:47:52
    OWG did reach consensus on
  • 02:47:56
    those removals and edits.
  • 02:47:59
    There were no recommendations for any additions to the list this
  • 02:48:03
    year. And it is OWG's recommendation
  • 02:48:08
    that WMS endorses the updated list.
  • 02:48:20
    Is there any question recommendation to endorse the list?
  • 02:48:25
    And I wanted to see we have
  • 02:48:29
    any discussion or questions on the. On the proposal
  • 02:48:36
    combo ballot for approval
  • 02:48:41
    anyhow. Any concerns
  • 02:48:45
    with that? If not, we will add this to the combo ballot.
  • 02:48:49
    Thank you, Ricky. You're welcome.
  • 02:48:52
    And speaking of combo ballot,
  • 02:48:56
    we are item 14, which is the combo,
  • Item 14 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey
    02:49:00
    and we've added a few items during our
  • 02:49:03
    meeting today and want
  • 02:49:07
    to see if we can get that show. There we go.
  • 02:49:11
    And see if we
  • 02:49:14
    have a motion to approve the combo ballot.
  • 02:49:19
    Bill Barnes. Second.
  • 02:49:24
    Bryan, any discussion?
  • 02:49:29
    All right, take it away, Brittany.
  • 02:49:34
    Thanks, Eric. Okay, you have your three
  • 02:49:38
    items there. Let me make this official looking
  • 02:49:45
    beginning with the consumer segment. Nabaraj. For Eric.
  • 02:49:50
    Yes, thank you.
  • 02:49:53
    Mark? Yes, thanks.
  • 02:49:56
    Preeti. Yes, thanks. Thank you.
  • 02:50:00
    Rick? Yes, thanks. Thank you all.
  • 02:50:05
    Trevor. For Blake. Yes, thank you.
  • 02:50:09
    Lucas. Yes. Eric.
  • 02:50:13
    Yes, thank you. And Jim.
  • 02:50:16
    Yes, thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:50:19
    Independent generators. Teresa.
  • 02:50:22
    Yes. Tom still
  • 02:50:28
    has not joined. Okay. Andy. Yes,
  • 02:50:32
    thanks. Brittany and Bryan. Yes, thank you.
  • 02:50:37
    Independent power marketers. Shane. For Reshmi.
  • 02:50:41
    Yes, thank you. Amanda.
  • 02:50:45
    Yes, thank you. Robert.
  • 02:50:49
    Yes, thank you. And Ian. Yes, thank you.
  • 02:50:52
    Brittany. Thank you all. Independent retail
  • 02:50:56
    electric providers. Bill. Yes. Bill for Anoush.
  • 02:50:59
    Yes. Joshua.
  • 02:51:05
    Yes, thanks. Joshua.
  • 02:51:09
    And Amir. Yes,
  • 02:51:12
    thank you. Investor owned utilities.
  • 02:51:15
    David. Yes. Ivan?
  • 02:51:26
    Let's see. I don't. I see Ivan's still on the phone,
  • 02:51:30
    but he's on mute. Might have caught him off guard.
  • 02:51:34
    Jim? Yes. Thanks, Brittany and
  • 02:51:39
    Rob for Vincent. Yes. We'll come back
  • 02:51:42
    to Ivan here in a second. Municipal segment.
  • 02:51:45
    David? Yes.
  • 02:51:49
    Tim? Yes.
  • 02:51:53
    Curtis.
  • 02:51:58
    Yes. And Faye.
  • 02:52:02
    Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Last call
  • 02:52:06
    for Ivan in IOU.
  • 02:52:19
    We know this is.
  • 02:52:26
    I'm sorry.
  • 02:52:31
    I see that you still have Ivan as a yes.
  • 02:52:42
    Are y'all seeing something that I'm not?
  • 02:52:45
    Ivan's not present. Okay, I'm sorry. You know, that that didn't
  • 02:52:49
    show up for me on my screen last time, so I'm
  • 02:52:59
    seeing unanimous. It it is. I I do like
  • 02:53:03
    to show it for folks. So it's
  • 02:53:06
    still not sticking. Okay. I'll have to close it and
  • 02:53:10
    reopen. However, Britney, this is. This is Ivan.
  • 02:53:13
    Sorry, I got unexpectedly disconnected here. Is it too late
  • 02:53:17
    to register a vote? It's too late.
  • 02:53:20
    I tallied it. No, it actually hasn't tallied. So let's
  • 02:53:25
    hear it. What's your vote? I apologize for that. I vote yes on the combo
  • 02:53:29
    ballot. Thank you very much.
  • 02:53:37
    All right, while this
  • 02:53:43
    one is churning away, let me go back for
  • 02:53:46
    a moment and display the initial
  • 02:53:50
    vote. I think the issue was that I had too many
  • 02:53:54
    excel documents open at one time,
  • 02:53:58
    and as it happened, one of the abstentions did not
  • 02:54:02
    stick. It was Bryan. Sam. So I wanted to confirm that you had abstained.
  • 02:54:07
    What?
  • 02:54:10
    Previously. I'm sorry. Okay. On the previous.
  • 02:54:13
    I am never abstaining on combo ballot
  • 02:54:16
    again. I will just walk out of the room if I need to. I'm sorry.
  • 02:54:19
    It was not the combo ballot. Is the AS Methodology.
  • 02:54:22
    Yeah. Yes, I abstained on the AS Methodology.
  • 02:54:26
    Okay, thank you. So anyway, there's the correct one for the AS Methodology.
  • 02:54:30
    Finally displaying. I apologize.
  • 02:54:34
    And let me see if I can open the other one. It is
  • 02:54:38
    unanimous, but I just. As a
  • 02:54:41
    matter of form, I like to display. Oh, yeah.
  • 02:54:49
    And it might not happen again. We have macros that
  • 02:54:53
    we have to enable for these to display the vote
  • 02:54:56
    tally. And of late, the macro enablement
  • 02:55:00
    has not popped up.
  • 02:55:06
    You know, Jordan was having similar issues at ERCOT's yesterday.
  • 02:55:09
    Right. Thank you. However, we have no objections.
  • 02:55:13
    No abstentions and 100% yes.
  • 02:55:17
    So thank you very much. All right.
  • 02:55:20
    Yeah, I think Bryan's extension was trending on x
  • 02:55:25
    at one time, so that was pretty cool.
  • Item 15 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
    02:55:30
    So next is our open action items.
  • Item 15.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
    02:55:33
    Jim, do you have anything on this?
  • 02:55:37
    No, I do not, Eric. Okay.
  • Item 15.3 - TAC assignments - Eric Blakey
    02:55:41
    I will just say that I think one of
  • 02:55:44
    the TAC discussions with Caitlin, she mentioned something
  • 02:55:48
    about reviewing our assignments. I would
  • 02:55:52
    appreciate if the working groups that we have
  • 02:55:57
    for these two, especially the one on the EPA and
  • 02:56:02
    the one on 1230. If the working groups could take
  • 02:56:06
    just a little bit of time at their meeting and look at these
  • 02:56:10
    and advise WMS if you have
  • 02:56:13
    any proposed changes or this
  • 02:56:17
    one on the EPA just continues to gnaw at me every time I hear
  • 02:56:20
    an update at the board on EPA, and I feel bad that we haven't talked
  • 02:56:24
    about it at WMS. It makes me
  • 02:56:28
    worry. So I'm wondering if these are even appropriate
  • 02:56:32
    anymore. There's also still
  • 02:56:36
    a page or two of open action
  • 02:56:39
    items and parking lot items, which we've
  • 02:56:43
    never added a parking lot item since I've been here. These are
  • 02:56:47
    all very old. And so I
  • 02:56:51
    would appreciate recommendations just to clean
  • 02:56:55
    out the parking lot and,
  • 02:56:58
    and consider whether, what we
  • 02:57:01
    need to do with these items. So is
  • 02:57:05
    that the chair's discretion? I would. I would think,
  • 02:57:09
    but I don't want to do this without input from the group
  • 02:57:13
    that says, yes, we don't need the parking
  • 02:57:16
    lot, because, like I say, these are getting very old at this point.
  • 02:57:19
    And so I never understood the reason I've,
  • 02:57:23
    in the working groups I've been involved or the subcommittees, we've never had parking
  • 02:57:27
    lots. We always just either
  • 02:57:30
    took care of them or, or didn't. And so I'm not sure what
  • 02:57:34
    the purpose of this is. So with
  • 02:57:38
    that,
  • 02:57:41
    let's move. Let's go to
  • Item 15.2 - Review of Stakeholder Process
    02:57:45
    stakeholder process. So we've already teed this up a little
  • 02:57:49
    bit. I just wanted to, to give WMS
  • 02:57:53
    an opportunity. I know you, I know there'll
  • 02:57:56
    be a TAC discussion. I wanted to
  • 02:58:00
    open the floor just in case there was something that WMS,
  • 02:58:04
    as a subcommittee wanted me to communicate
  • 02:58:08
    to TAC. I know some of the issues that have been
  • 02:58:13
    identified that could have resulted
  • 02:58:18
    in better information to the board or better information to the commissioners.
  • 02:58:23
    A lot of those, I would say,
  • 02:58:27
    spent considerable amount of time in the WMS purview,
  • 02:58:33
    thinking about 245 and thinking about
  • 02:58:36
    1190 and the
  • 02:58:41
    one on, on ancillary
  • 02:58:44
    services for 2024.
  • 02:58:48
    You know, we spent a lot of time, as much
  • 02:58:52
    as we could. And so, you know, and there
  • 02:58:55
    may be other, other opportunities that you
  • 02:58:59
    guys have thought about, and if you want to present those to TAC,
  • 02:59:03
    obviously, you have that right. But I just
  • 02:59:06
    wondered if there's something that, that WMS
  • 02:59:11
    could or should ask,
  • 02:59:14
    something we could do better, differently.
  • 02:59:18
    There's been discussions about changing the voting to
  • 02:59:22
    require two thirds instead of 50%.
  • 02:59:28
    And there's changes like that that are being proposed that they say, well, but it
  • 02:59:32
    really wouldn't have mattered. It wouldn't have changed anything the last three years.
  • 02:59:36
    And so I'm like, well, if it would help show that we're,
  • 02:59:40
    that if that was identified as something that could help
  • 02:59:43
    the process, I would certainly support it. But I also
  • 02:59:47
    don't always support change just for the sake of change. So any,
  • 02:59:52
    any feedback, thoughts or comments that anyone
  • 02:59:56
    would like to have? Yes, Seth? Yeah,
  • 02:59:59
    I'll say something. At the risk of people telling me not to, whatever that
  • 03:00:03
    means, I'm a sucker for saying stuff. I guess if
  • 03:00:09
    we went with a two thirds majority, I start
  • 03:00:12
    to think about, well, how does that interact with the upstream committees?
  • 03:00:18
    And so, I mean, you know, we have two thirds attack.
  • 03:00:21
    So then that just puts the emphasis back on WMS.
  • 03:00:25
    It was supposed to be a filter through the process.
  • 03:00:29
    And so that, to me, you could do that. I don't
  • 03:00:33
    know that it would. I don't know that I feel strongly
  • 03:00:36
    either way, but I don't. I would like to hear a
  • 03:00:40
    rationale for that, because I have heard the rationale for why it
  • 03:00:43
    is the way it is today.
  • 03:00:46
    So. And as far as it sounds like your other issues that you're sort
  • 03:00:50
    of bringing up are on are about transparency and
  • 03:00:55
    how, how the, the body is governed, is that
  • 03:00:58
    sort of. Okay, interesting. I'll think about some of that.
  • 03:01:03
    Thank you. Anyone else?
  • 03:01:08
    I caught in the chat, I was just. Yes, Alex, go ahead. That's okay.
  • 03:01:12
    I was just. I think that,
  • 03:01:15
    that, well,
  • 03:01:18
    probably my read on where this may be
  • 03:01:21
    going is that the main concerns
  • 03:01:25
    seem to be around communication and how we can increase
  • 03:01:29
    the visibility of why everybody wasn't on board with something
  • 03:01:33
    and then make sure that's resolved at TAC level.
  • 03:01:37
    I'm not reading that. We're going to need to change at the
  • 03:01:41
    subcommittee level, those voting thresholds,
  • 03:01:44
    you know, on the table, but it seems like a less likely outcome
  • 03:01:49
    than just streamlining a few things and increasing the
  • 03:01:52
    visibility and transparency.
  • 03:01:56
    So I would hold on that until after the
  • 03:02:00
    TAC discussion, at least to go too far down that road.
  • 03:02:06
    Okay.
  • 03:02:09
    Anyone else?
  • 03:02:14
    Okay, well, there'll be a TAC discussion at the next TAC meeting.
  • 03:02:17
    It starts at 09:00. Don't show up at 9:30, it'll already
  • 03:02:21
    be almost over. So if you
  • 03:02:24
    have anything specific to WMS, Jim and
  • 03:02:28
    I are always open to your suggestions,
  • 03:02:32
    your requests, anything that we can do to streamline run things better,
  • 03:02:37
    to be efficient, but also to hit these objectives of communication
  • 03:02:42
    and at least doing our part to tell TAC what they,
  • 03:02:46
    what we've discussed and what they can move
  • 03:02:50
    forward as it goes to the board and to the PUC.
  • 03:02:54
    So with that,
  • 03:02:59
    I think that is our last item. We don't have have reports
  • 03:03:06
    from some of our groups, and our next meeting is October 7.
  • 03:03:11
    (item:16:Adjourn - Eric Blakey)And if there's nothing else, I will call this
  • 03:03:14
    meeting adjourned. Thank you very much.
Draft-minutes-wms-20240710
Aug 27, 2024 - doc - 247 KB
02-agenda-wms-20240911
Sep 03, 2024 - doc - 140.5 KB
20240911-wms-combined-ballot
Sep 10, 2024 - xls - 140.5 KB
20240911-wms-2025-as-methodology-ballot
Sep 10, 2024 - xls - 141.5 KB
05-wms_2025_as_methodology_09112024
Sep 03, 2024 - pptx - 321.8 KB
02-agenda-wms-20240911
Sep 04, 2024 - doc - 140.5 KB
03-draft-minutes-wms-20240710
Sep 03, 2024 - doc - 247 KB
05-crr-wms_09112024
Sep 03, 2024 - pptx - 220.4 KB
06-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-aug-30-meeting
Sep 03, 2024 - pptx - 627.5 KB
05-2025_as_methodology_sep_wms
Sep 05, 2024 - zip - 795.9 KB
05-crr-wms_09112024
Sep 08, 2024 - pptx - 304.7 KB
05-lli-queue-status-update---2024-9-6
Sep 08, 2024 - pdf - 268.6 KB
Meeting-materials-20240911
Sep 03, 2024 - zip - 4.2 MB
Meeting-materials-20240911
Sep 04, 2024 - zip - 4.2 MB
Meeting-materials-20240911
Sep 05, 2024 - zip - 4.7 MB
06-06-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-aug-30-meeting
Sep 08, 2024 - pptx - 627.7 KB
07-dswg_wms-update-911
Sep 08, 2024 - pptx - 1.5 MB
08-wms_update_rcwg_20240911
Sep 03, 2024 - pptx - 37.6 KB
09-240911-sawg-report-to-wms-v1
Sep 08, 2024 - pptx - 3.8 MB
Meeting-materials-20240911
Sep 08, 2024 - zip - 9.8 MB
13-11-mte_2024
Sep 03, 2024 - xlsx - 63.9 KB
Revision-requests-20240911
Sep 03, 2024 - zip - 2.9 MB
Meeting-materials-20240911v2
Sep 10, 2024 - zip - 9.8 MB
Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Pamela Hanson
Starts at 00:00:15
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:01:32
2 - Agenda Review - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:01:59
3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:03:07
4 - Technical Advisory Committee TAC Update - Eric Blakey
Starts at 00:03:50
5 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
Starts at 00:05:54
5.1 - Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2025 - Vote - Luis Hinojosa
Starts at 00:06:23
5.2 - Congestion Revenue Rights Auction Mitigation - Samantha Findley
Starts at 00:26:40
5.3 - Large Load Interconnection Report - Manuel Navarro Catalan - Chris Cosway
Starts at 01:17:59
6 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - Amanda Frazier
Starts at 01:34:06
6.1 - NPRR1235 Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service Discussion
Starts at 01:34:59
6.2 - NPRR1229, CMP Payment Policy Questions Discussion
Starts at 01:36:09
6.3 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - ORDC Implications
Starts at 01:38:32
6.4 - NPRR1241 Firm Fuel Supply & Hourly Standby Fee
Starts at 01:39:00
6.5 - NPRR1230 / Other
Starts at 01:40:24
7 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Nathaniel Mancha
Starts at 01:41:11
8 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - Nathaniel Mancha - Kiran Sidhu
Starts at 02:00:52
9 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - Kevin Hanson
Starts at 02:05:19
12.6 - NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service - SAWG and WMWG
Starts at 02:05:49
10 - WMS Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:09:57
10.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG
Starts at 02:10:09
10.2 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations - RCWG
Starts at 02:10:57
11 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:11:14
11.1 - NPRR1241, Firm Fuel Supply Service - FFSS - Availability and Hourly Standby Fee
Starts at 02:11:21
12 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:13:27
12.7 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - WMWG
Starts at 02:13:42
12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
Starts at 02:22:09
12.2 - NPRR1200, Utilization of Calculated Values for Non-WSL for ESRs - MWG
Starts at 02:22:15
12.3 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies - WMWG
Starts at 02:22:20
12.4 - NPRR1214, Reliability Deployment Price Adder Fix to Provide Locational Price Signals, Reduce Uplift and Risk - CMWG
Starts at 02:23:15
12.5 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG
Starts at 02:23:28
13 - Major Transmission Elements - MTE - list - Vote - Rickey Floyd
Starts at 02:46:47
14 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:49:00
15 - Other Business - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:55:30
15.1 - Review Open Action Items - Jim Lee
Starts at 02:55:33
15.3 - TAC assignments - Eric Blakey
Starts at 02:55:41
15.2 - Review of Stakeholder Process
Starts at 02:57:45
16 - Adjourn - Eric Blakey
Starts at 03:03:11