02/05/2025 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 0:24:15
Duration 2:28:44
Loaded: 16.43%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 2:04:29
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 - Suzy Clifton
    00:00:09
    Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT.
  • 00:00:12
    We're getting ready to start with the, February
  • 00:00:15
    5 WMS meeting minute I'm sorry. WMS meeting.
  • 00:00:19
    And before we do, I'm gonna go ahead
  • 00:00:21
    and start with the meeting reminders. Just very
  • 00:00:23
    quickly, if you're here in the meeting room,
  • 00:00:26
    you can enter the chat either by holding
  • 00:00:29
    up your card, and Britney will put you
  • 00:00:31
    in the queue, or you can enter yourself.
  • 00:00:35
    We are working with the managed queue. So,
  • 00:00:38
    obviously, those on the WebEx will enter yourselves
  • 00:00:40
    into the chat as well. Wait for the
  • 00:00:42
    chair to recognize you before you begin speaking,
  • 00:00:45
    please. And then also as we approach the
  • 00:00:48
    balloting process, if you are, participating as a
  • 00:00:52
    seated representative and going to be casting a
  • 00:00:54
    vote, please make sure you unmute yourself before,
  • 00:00:58
    we get to your segment and then return
  • 00:01:00
    to the mute function. So that'll help us
  • 00:01:02
    be a little bit more efficient with that
  • 00:01:03
    validating process if you're participating on the WebEx.
  • 00:01:07
    And then if you're here in person, please
  • 00:01:09
    make sure you sign in in the sign
  • 00:01:11
    in sheet right outside this meeting ring door
  • 00:01:13
    so that we can capture accurately that you're
  • 00:01:15
    here in person. And finally, if the WebEx
  • 00:01:18
    ends for any reason, give us just a
  • 00:01:20
    few moments, and we will restart the WebEx.
  • 00:01:23
    And you should be able to log in
  • 00:01:25
    with the same meeting information. If there is
  • 00:01:28
    a problem with that WebEx, we will send
  • 00:01:30
    new, meeting room details to the WMS listserv.
  • 00:01:35
    And with that, Blake, we're ready to get
  • 00:01:36
    started, and we do have a quorum for
  • 00:01:38
    this morning. Thank you, Susie. This is Blake
  • 00:01:42
    Holt. I am excited to get started for
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt
    00:01:45
    this month's WMS. Before we do, I'm gonna
  • 00:01:47
    see if Britney can pull up the antitrust
  • 00:01:49
    admonition, and I'll give you all a chance
  • 00:01:52
    to review. Additionally, y'all can find this on
  • 00:01:54
    the the website if you want to refer
  • 00:01:56
    back. I thank you for your attention there.
  • 00:02:04
    And before we get started, I wanted to,
  • 00:02:07
    recognize some proxies and alt reps, that we
  • 00:02:10
    have on the call today and in the
  • 00:02:11
    room. Mark Smith has given his proxy to
  • 00:02:15
    Preeti Patel. Teresa Allen has given her proxy
  • 00:02:19
    to Tom Burke. Andy Nguyen has given his
  • 00:02:22
    alt rep to Katie Rich, and Eric Goff
  • 00:02:25
    has given his alt rep to Nabaraj for
  • 00:02:28
    December and the companion revisions, related to that.
  • 00:02:32
    And then if we get to 1PM, we'll
  • 00:02:35
    see Martha Henson for Ivan Velasquez. But I
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Blake Holt
    00:02:40
    think I got everyone there. Moving on to
  • 00:02:43
    a quick agenda review. First, we'll take a
  • 00:02:47
    look at meeting minutes for the last two
  • 00:02:49
    meetings and have a vote there, and then
  • 00:02:53
    I'll get into a short TAC update. We'll
  • 00:02:55
    vote on working group leadership and then have
  • 00:02:59
    a discussion on WMS goals and a few
  • 00:03:02
    market ERCOT market items. And then, finally, we'll
  • 00:03:06
    get into a review of our revision requests
  • 00:03:09
    that are on our plate and get updates
  • 00:03:10
    from, the relevant working groups. Is there anything
  • 00:03:15
    that members would like to add at this
  • 00:03:17
    time that we could perhaps tack on to
  • 00:03:19
    the end of the agenda? Oh, yes. There
  • 00:03:28
    was one item that didn't make the agenda,
  • 00:03:31
    but we are going to hear an update
  • 00:03:33
    from WMWG, and that's, NPRR1190. So
  • 00:03:38
    just wanted to flag that, for y'all, that
  • 00:03:41
    we will be discussing that when we get
  • Item 3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
    00:03:43
    to the WMWG report. Thanks, Jim. Alright. On
  • 00:03:50
    to agenda item number three, the approval of
  • Item 3.1 - December 4, 2024
    00:03:54
    the WMS meeting minutes. And like I said,
  • Item 3.2 - January 8, 2024
    00:03:57
    there's, I believe, December 4 and January 8
  • 00:04:01
    meeting minutes posted. I do not believe we've
  • 00:04:05
    received any comments Oncor either of these, but
  • 00:04:08
    wanted to pause here and see if, anyone
  • 00:04:11
    in the room or on the phone would
  • 00:04:13
    like to modify. Alright. Seeing nothing, I think
  • 00:04:21
    this would be a good combo ballot item.
  • 00:04:23
    Are there any is there any opposition to
  • 00:04:26
    that? Alrighty. Good deal. Oncor, agenda item number
  • Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update - Blake Holt
    00:04:36
    four, the the TAC update. By my count,
  • 00:04:41
    there were 17 approved revision requests at TAC
  • 00:04:46
    as well as an endorsement for the AS
  • 00:04:48
    methodology changes related to NPRR1257
  • 00:04:52
    and then also three transmission projects. Some other
  • 00:04:56
    discussions I'd like to highlight, ERCOT summarized their
  • 00:05:01
    CFSG conversations around the estimated aggregate
  • 00:05:05
    liability, methodology and and changes that we'll likely
  • 00:05:10
    see a new revision request to cover, that
  • 00:05:14
    will implement these. And, basically, the changes will
  • 00:05:17
    reduce instances of over collateralization and without increasing
  • 00:05:22
    instances of under collateralization. So wanted to flag
  • 00:05:26
    that, pending or upcoming revision request to implement
  • 00:05:31
    those changes. Tech also discussed the goal process,
  • 00:05:35
    which we'll get into in a a later
  • 00:05:37
    item on our agenda. And then we also
  • 00:05:41
    spent some time with Keith Collins discussing ERCOT's,
  • 00:05:46
    proposed market design framework and listened to stakeholder
  • 00:05:50
    feedback on that. Is there anything else of
  • 00:05:53
    note that that anyone else would like to
  • 00:05:55
    bring up and flag in the TAC conversation?
  • 00:06:03
    Alright. Hearing none. Oncor item number five, which
  • Item 5 - 2025 WMS Working Group Leadership - Vote - Blake Holt
    00:06:08
    is the 2025 working group leadership
  • 00:06:11
    vote. Gonna see if Britney could bring up
  • 00:06:16
    the the slides covering the proposals there, the
  • 00:06:21
    nominees there. I'm just gonna go through the
  • 00:06:24
    names on on each group. For the CMWG,
  • 00:06:27
    we have Chen Guo from NextEra with co
  • 00:06:31
    vice chairs Beverly Lowe and Shane Thomas. For
  • 00:06:35
    DSWG, we have, a nominee for chair Nathan
  • 00:06:39
    Mancha and vice chair Mark Smith. For MSWG,
  • 00:06:45
    Hedi Lukadu for chair and Shuye Ting for
  • 00:06:49
    vice chair. I will note that Shuye is
  • 00:06:52
    with Constellation. For m MWG, we have Kyle
  • 00:06:57
    Stuckley, with Oncor and vice chair Tony Davis.
  • 00:07:02
    For RCWG, Puran Sidhu with RWE and Kara
  • 00:07:07
    Beckman with NextEra. For SAWG, Kevin Hansen's returning
  • 00:07:13
    with Greg Lackey and Pete Wernkin as co
  • 00:07:16
    vice chairs. And finally, with WMWG, we have
  • 00:07:20
    Amanda Frazier with Treaty Oak Clean Energy and
  • 00:07:23
    Trevor Sacco with LCRA. I think this would
  • 00:07:29
    be a great item for for the combo
  • 00:07:31
    ballot and hoping we can get it on
  • 00:07:35
    there. Is there any opposition to that? Seeing
  • 00:07:41
    nothing. Really appreciate folks, returning and stepping up
  • 00:07:45
    into new leadership roles, in the working groups.
  • 00:07:48
    I'm looking forward to a good year. Thank
  • Item 6 - 2025 WMS Goals - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
    00:07:52
    you. Okay. On to agenda item number six,
  • 00:08:04
    which is WMS goal discussion. Back to an
  • 00:08:08
    item I mentioned that that came up at
  • 00:08:10
    TAC, goal conversation came up, and Martha Henson
  • 00:08:15
    from Oncor is working towards trimming down, tax
  • 00:08:20
    set of goals and removing some duplicative items
  • 00:08:23
    that were on the list. And my understanding
  • 00:08:26
    is we may be moving more towards a
  • 00:08:29
    a high level mission statement for, tactical goals,
  • 00:08:34
    and then we'll maybe utilize the action item
  • 00:08:37
    list for more emerging initiatives or topics that
  • 00:08:40
    are covered from year to year. I'd like
  • 00:08:43
    to recommend that we maybe pause and see
  • 00:08:46
    what TAC comes up with and try to
  • 00:08:49
    mirror that approach here, but wanted to open
  • 00:08:52
    the floor to to folks in the room
  • 00:08:54
    or on the phone to, that have different
  • 00:08:57
    ideas. Alright. Well, we will pause and take
  • 00:09:05
    that approach and and check mark Martha's work.
  • 00:09:10
    Opine on Martha's work. How about alright. On
  • 00:09:15
    to agenda item number seven, ERCOT operations and
  • Item 7 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
    00:09:18
    market items. We have a few reports. But
  • 00:09:21
    before we get into those, I did want
  • 00:09:23
    to be re responsive and and touch on
  • 00:09:25
    a conversation I heard at at TAC. There
  • 00:09:28
    were some concerns brought forward about, the RUC
  • 00:09:31
    opt out process and timelines and seemed like
  • 00:09:34
    maybe a request for further education there. I
  • 00:09:37
    brought this forward during our WMS planning meeting,
  • 00:09:41
    and ERCOT has committed to touch on this
  • 00:09:43
    topic at a future WMWG. So I just
  • 00:09:46
    wanted to flag that for, interested parties and
  • 00:09:50
    then also give WMWG leadership heads up that,
  • 00:09:53
    that will probably be on y'all's plate soon.
  • 00:09:57
    I'll pause here and see if ERCOT has
  • 00:09:59
    any other comments on this. Alright. We look
  • 00:10:09
    good to go there. First up, do we
  • 00:10:12
    have, Maggie Shanks available to present the settlement
  • 00:10:16
    stability report? Hi. Yes. I'm here. Alright. Take
  • Item 7.1 - 2024 Q4 Settlement Stability Report - Magie Shanks
    00:10:21
    it away, Maggie. Okay. So this is the
  • 00:10:24
    2024 Q4 update to the
  • 00:10:26
    settlement stability report. So, in Q4, we
  • 00:10:34
    did have a couple of price corrections that
  • 00:10:36
    occurred after statements have posted. So we had
  • 00:10:40
    four different operating days that we did resettle.
  • 00:10:43
    So So you'll see those stats on this
  • 00:10:45
    slide as well as a link to all
  • 00:10:47
    of the market notices if you wanted additional
  • 00:10:49
    information on the reason for each of those
  • 00:10:52
    resettlements. In addition to that, in the notes
  • 00:10:56
    on this slide, there is an additional note
  • 00:10:59
    that we also had to resettle a CRR
  • 00:11:02
    balancing account because of the DAM resettlement for
  • 00:11:05
    up day one twenty. And that market notice
  • 00:11:08
    is also linked on this slide as well.
  • 00:11:15
    In addition, we also had a couple of
  • 00:11:18
    resettlements we had to do that were due
  • 00:11:20
    to non price errors. So the first one
  • 00:11:24
    was for operating days, December 13 through January
  • 00:11:28
    2, and that was due to an EPS
  • 00:11:31
    meter incorrectly stopped in our settlement system. And
  • 00:11:35
    you'll see those market notices linked as well.
  • 00:11:38
    And then we had another resettlement on January
  • 00:11:42
    20. Due to a DAM resettlement, we also
  • 00:11:45
    had to resettle the the real time, to
  • 00:11:48
    make sure we are revenue neutral, and that
  • 00:11:51
    market notice is also linked as well. And
  • 00:11:59
    this slide shows the cumulative disputes for 2024.
  • 00:12:04
    There's you'll see the amount submitted and the
  • 00:12:07
    number of disputes resolved. And the reason that
  • 00:12:10
    those don't match is listed at the bottom
  • 00:12:12
    of the slide. So if, a dispute was
  • 00:12:16
    submitted but not resolved, it may be because
  • 00:12:18
    it hasn't started yet. The dispute is still
  • 00:12:21
    open. It was rejected or withdrawn. And a
  • 00:12:24
    % of the disputes that were resolved were
  • 00:12:27
    timely. And this slide just shows the percent
  • 00:12:35
    change from the previous statements. So the top
  • 00:12:39
    graph just shows the percent change from initial
  • 00:12:41
    to final and final to true up, and
  • 00:12:44
    the table at the bottom just shows those
  • 00:12:47
    stats for, the different years. And these next
  • 00:12:57
    two slides show the average, of the operating
  • 00:13:02
    days total charges, the median, max, and minimum.
  • 00:13:07
    And this slide is for real time charges,
  • 00:13:10
    and the next slide shows those same stats
  • 00:13:12
    for the day ahead charges. Next slide, please.
  • 00:13:30
    And this graph shows the availability of the
  • 00:13:32
    ESI ID consumption data for the load volume
  • 00:13:35
    percentages. And this one shows the ESI ID
  • 00:13:43
    count availability percentages. This is the net allocation
  • 00:13:53
    to load for the past thirteen months. And
  • 00:14:03
    this one just shows the net allocation to
  • 00:14:05
    load by congestion management zone. And the last
  • 00:14:14
    slide shows the securitization default uplift and, default
  • 00:14:19
    charges. One thing you'll notice is that the
  • 00:14:25
    uplift amounts for each, subchapter did go up.
  • 00:14:29
    So it went up in November of twenty
  • 00:14:32
    twenty four for subchapter m, and, again, it
  • 00:14:37
    went up, I believe, in December for subchapter
  • 00:14:48
    n. And that is the end of my
  • 00:14:52
    presentation. I'll take any questions. I see Jim
  • 00:14:56
    Galvin's in the queue. Jim, please go ahead.
  • 00:15:06
    Jim, if you're speaking, you might be on
  • 00:15:08
    mute. Alright. Jim may be having some audio
  • 00:15:24
    issues. Maggie, are you going to be around
  • 00:15:27
    for a little while on the call in
  • 00:15:28
    case you Yes. I'll be here. Get reconnected?
  • 00:15:31
    Okay. We'll we'll yeah. Jim, if you if
  • 00:15:34
    you're having audio issues, please drop it in
  • 00:15:37
    the chat or, when you get those resolved,
  • 00:15:39
    happy to take it back up. K. Well,
  • 00:15:47
    thank you. Alright. Thanks, Maggie. Alright. Next step
  • 00:15:53
    is our 2024 Q4 unregistered
  • 00:15:57
    DG report. Fred, are you available to present
  • 00:16:01
    that? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.
  • Item 7.2 - 2024 Q4 Unregistered Distribution Generation DG Report - Fred Khodabakhsh
    00:16:05
    Okay. Hi. Good morning. This is Fred. I'm
  • 00:16:09
    in the research group of ERCOT. And today,
  • 00:16:13
    I have a few few slides that shows
  • 00:16:16
    the unregistered digits for, 2024 Q4.
  • 00:16:20
    For the fourth quarter, we have, 2,800
  • 00:16:30
    megawatt of unregistered DG, and the table doesn't
  • 00:16:35
    include any energy storage. But, based on the
  • 00:16:40
    request, we are, showing the unregistered batteries, in
  • 00:16:47
    the report also. And for Q4, we
  • 00:16:50
    had close to 81 megawatt of batteries. Next
  • 00:16:56
    slide, please. The Q4 also showed, steady
  • 00:17:07
    growth compared to, third quarter of, 2024. There
  • 00:17:13
    were, 81 megawatt of additional unregistered DG from
  • 00:17:19
    and from the table, you can see that
  • 00:17:22
    most of the additions were, from solar. The
  • 00:17:30
    next slide, which is, my last slide, shows
  • 00:17:34
    the same growth graphically all the way to
  • 00:17:39
    2016. And this is my last slide. Any
  • 00:17:47
    questions? I'm not seeing anything in the room,
  • 00:17:55
    Fred, or anything in the queue. Thank you.
  • 00:17:58
    Appreciate you appreciate you bringing this. Alright. Next
  • 00:18:03
    up, we we should have Samantha Finley with,
  • 00:18:06
    the annual update to the CRR activity calendar.
  • 00:18:10
    Samantha, are you available? Hi. Good morning. Yes.
  • Item 7.3 - Annual Update to the Congestion Revenue Right - CRR - Activity Calendar - Vote - Samantha Findley
    00:18:15
    I'm here. Hello. My name is Samantha Finley.
  • 00:18:20
    I'm with ERCOT CRR market operations team.
  • 00:18:24
    Just here to present the annual CRR activity
  • 00:18:27
    calendar update. Next slide, please. Protocols require ERCOT
  • 00:18:36
    to post an updated CRR activity calendar by
  • 00:18:40
    April 1 of each calendar year. Each calendar
  • 00:18:44
    includes the auction activity dates for the remainder
  • 00:18:48
    of the current calendar year or for the
  • 00:18:50
    next two years, and the calendar must be
  • 00:18:54
    approved by WMS prior to the annual update
  • 00:18:59
    posting. We previewed the current draft calendar at
  • 00:19:04
    CMWG last month, and no revisions were requested.
  • 00:19:10
    So today, we're seeking final approval from WMS.
  • 00:19:15
    Next slide, please. Just a few general reminders
  • 00:19:22
    about the process, and and what's behind some
  • 00:19:27
    of the dates in the CRR activity calendar.
  • 00:19:30
    So the model build process begins three weeks
  • 00:19:34
    before the model posting date, which is the
  • 00:19:36
    first date in the CRR activity calendar for
  • 00:19:40
    each, relevant auction. We added a third week
  • 00:19:46
    at the beginning of twenty twenty three due
  • 00:19:49
    to changes to some of the model build
  • 00:19:52
    tools, as well as some, additional processes and
  • 00:19:58
    procedures that we have built into the model
  • 00:20:01
    build process. We hold in general the pattern
  • 00:20:06
    that we have in the calendar is that
  • 00:20:08
    we have a monthly auction and a long
  • 00:20:11
    term auction every month of the year. Usually,
  • 00:20:14
    we see the monthly auction appear in the
  • 00:20:17
    first half of the month, and then the
  • 00:20:19
    very next week is the long term auction
  • 00:20:22
    bid window. Some months be due to holidays,
  • 00:20:26
    there, has to be a one week gap.
  • 00:20:30
    Also, monthly auction results are posted one week
  • 00:20:33
    after the bid window closes, and long term
  • 00:20:36
    auction results are posted two weeks after the
  • 00:20:38
    bid window closes. Next slide, please. There are
  • 00:20:49
    also two additional tabs on the calendar. The
  • 00:20:52
    calendar protocol references includes the specific protocol sections
  • 00:20:57
    related to the selection of the dates in
  • 00:20:59
    the calendar, and the PCRRs tab contains, relevant
  • 00:21:04
    activity dates and protocol sections for the PCRR
  • 00:21:09
    annual allocation process. Next slide, please. The current
  • 00:21:21
    calendar goes through March of twenty twenty seven,
  • 00:21:25
    that monthly auction. So the additional year that's
  • 00:21:30
    added on to the calendar goes through the
  • 00:21:33
    March 2028 monthly auction. And we've applied the
  • 00:21:37
    same patterns to assign the dates that we've
  • 00:21:40
    used, in previous years to maintain protocol requirements
  • 00:21:45
    and consistency. And as always, we want to
  • 00:21:50
    encourage everyone, but especially PCR eligible NOEIs to
  • 00:21:55
    take a look at the PCRRs tab on
  • 00:21:58
    the calendar. Alright. Next slide, please. So we're
  • 00:22:09
    seeking final approval today from WMS. The last
  • 00:22:14
    chance to get WMS approval, if not today,
  • 00:22:18
    would be on the March 5 WMS before
  • 00:22:21
    the, protocol posting deadline of April 1. And
  • 00:22:26
    just included a screenshot of where you can
  • 00:22:28
    find that on the CRR webpage. And that
  • 00:22:34
    is the update. And the, calendar is also
  • 00:22:37
    posted. Thank you. Thanks, Samantha. I see you
  • 00:22:44
    have a question in the room from Eric
  • 00:22:46
    Goff. Eric, please go ahead. Samantha, it seems
  • 00:22:52
    like this annual activity has been pretty stable
  • 00:22:55
    for a number of years. Is that your
  • 00:22:57
    recollection too, or has there been has this
  • 00:23:00
    review by WMS resulted in some change sometime
  • 00:23:03
    in the last five years? Not that I'm
  • 00:23:06
    aware of. I've been doing this update the
  • 00:23:10
    last, I wanna say, three or so years.
  • 00:23:15
    But, yeah, I don't think that there have
  • 00:23:16
    been any significant updates. Okay. It looks like
  • 00:23:21
    I I got someone to speak up in
  • 00:23:23
    the room. Sorry. I was trying to speak
  • 00:23:26
    off. Katie Rich with Vistra. I I do
  • 00:23:28
    remember Austin Energy bringing up some issues probably
  • 00:23:31
    within the last five years on the calendar.
  • 00:23:33
    Maybe those have been resolved with the way
  • 00:23:36
    they do it now, but just wanted to
  • 00:23:38
    make sure that there was some discussion. Maybe
  • 00:23:40
    we can ask CMWG to look into whether
  • 00:23:42
    or not we can remove this annual requirement
  • 00:23:44
    or not. That seems reasonable and also gives,
  • 00:23:48
    you know, folks some notice if they have
  • 00:23:50
    had concerns in the past. I think I
  • 00:23:53
    think that's a good suggestion, Eric. In terms
  • 00:23:58
    of today, it it seems like this is
  • 00:24:00
    a good combo ballot item. I'm hopeful we
  • 00:24:03
    can get it on there. Is there any
  • 00:24:05
    opposition to including it on the combo ballot?
  • 00:24:11
    No opposition. Let's add it. Thank you. Thank
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 8 - WMS Revision Requests - Blake Holt
    00:24:15
    you. Thanks, Samantha. Thanks. Alright. Onto our revision
  • Item 8.1 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
    00:24:30
    request. The first one that is up for
  • 00:24:35
    a potential vote, ERCOT has come back with
  • 00:24:38
    an impact analysis for VCMRR042. And
  • 00:24:43
    for a quick reminder, we approved this on
  • 00:24:45
    December 4 and tabled the revision in January
  • 00:24:48
    in order to give time to produce, the
  • 00:24:51
    IEA. I see that since then, ERCOT has
  • 00:24:53
    filed comments. And, I see Ino walking to
  • 00:24:58
    the mic right now, so I assume we're
  • 00:25:02
    going to get a a primer on the
  • 00:25:04
    on the comments. Ino, please take it away.
  • 00:25:08
    Yes. Thank you. So we filed comments on
  • 00:25:12
    top of the, the the comments that, Lumina
  • 00:25:15
    has, filed. And the reason for the comments
  • 00:25:18
    is because there was a miss there were
  • 00:25:22
    two paragraphs that, basically, we have to change
  • 00:25:26
    in order to implement, out of automate this
  • 00:25:31
    process in the future. So just to give
  • 00:25:35
    you, some background, the the we are going
  • 00:25:38
    to calculate emissions costs manually until there's a
  • 00:25:42
    system change. So the two paragraphs that describe
  • 00:25:46
    this process had to we we had to
  • 00:25:49
    put in a gray box and make changes
  • 00:25:51
    to those paragraphs so we can implement in
  • 00:25:53
    the future. I also, wanna make a desktop
  • 00:25:59
    edits if if you don't mind. Britney, if
  • 00:26:02
    you pull, please, the, ERCOT comments. If you
  • 00:26:11
    go to the, our to the revision to
  • 00:26:15
    the to this to the comments, on top
  • 00:26:19
    all the way on top. Yes. Keep going
  • 00:26:23
    down. Yes. So, actually, it's not in here.
  • 00:26:28
    It's going to be in the, in the
  • 00:26:33
    comments that was submitted by Lumenant on, 11/11/2024.
  • 00:26:41
    Oh, yes. Right there. Yep. Right there. The
  • 00:26:43
    annual index prices would continue to be used
  • 00:26:46
    for SOx from October to April,
  • 00:26:48
    and that's not the case in both manual
  • 00:26:50
    process and also once we have system automation.
  • 00:26:53
    The pry the, for SOx will
  • 00:26:55
    continue throughout the entire year. So it's January
  • 00:26:58
    through December. It's only NOx which will be
  • 00:27:01
    calculated from May through September, both manually and
  • 00:27:04
    also once we have a system change. And
  • 00:27:09
    those are the only comments that they like
  • 00:27:12
    to make. I'm not sure. You know? Yes.
  • 00:27:18
    Is there language further down? Is there language
  • 00:27:21
    in the body that needs to be changed?
  • 00:27:23
    No. I believe it's correct. Reflect. Okay. Thank
  • 00:27:25
    you. Alright. Just for for my understanding, the
  • 00:27:33
    the revisions here that you made do not
  • 00:27:36
    fundamentally change the discussion at RCWG at all.
  • 00:27:41
    Right. So if you wanna speak to that.
  • 00:27:44
    Yeah. Katie Rich with Bistro. You know, thank
  • 00:27:47
    you for catching these. No. We are we're
  • 00:27:49
    in agreement with all of the the edits
  • 00:27:51
    that they made. I think they're good clarifications.
  • 00:27:54
    And, you know, just by way of justification
  • 00:27:58
    for this, there were some federal guidelines that
  • 00:28:01
    were put out a couple of years ago,
  • 00:28:03
    that suggests that NOx is only seasonal. And
  • 00:28:06
    so, that is one justification for making this
  • 00:28:10
    change that maybe didn't come to light, prior
  • 00:28:13
    to this. And then also wanted to just
  • 00:28:15
    point out that Ino's team has been doing
  • 00:28:18
    a lot of verifiable cost calculations manually. So
  • 00:28:23
    the reason you're seeing this cost here is
  • 00:28:25
    that it isn't a first attempt to try
  • 00:28:28
    to automate this. And by pulling in the
  • 00:28:30
    daily prices, it will be much more accurate,
  • 00:28:32
    and that will be in line with the
  • 00:28:34
    federal guidelines. So we we support this and
  • 00:28:37
    and hope that we can move this forward
  • 00:28:39
    today. I do not expect this VCMRR to
  • 00:28:46
    be automated anytime soon until after RTC+B, twenty
  • 00:28:52
    twenty six or after that, not prior to
  • 00:28:55
    RTC+B. Thanks. You know, why while I have
  • 00:29:00
    you up there, I just had a quick
  • 00:29:02
    question for my own education. Looking through the
  • 00:29:07
    IA, I see enterprise integration nodal services. Is
  • 00:29:12
    there any insight you can give us into
  • 00:29:14
    what what that work is? Right. So, the
  • 00:29:18
    way the way it's gonna work is that
  • 00:29:22
    we have a vendor, in this case, it's
  • 00:29:24
    Hargas Media, and they publish these prices, we
  • 00:29:28
    have to automate pull that those prices from
  • 00:29:30
    their systems to our systems. And then the,
  • 00:29:35
    those emissions prices will be populated in WMS,
  • 00:29:39
    potentially, or in settlements. And then settlements will
  • 00:29:43
    do some calculations and push that to WMS.
  • 00:29:45
    And this, other systems within ERCOT, they will
  • 00:29:48
    need to be modified. And that's that's the
  • 00:29:51
    uncertainty. That's why we have anywhere between 90
  • 00:29:55
    and a hundred and $40,000 because we're not
  • 00:29:57
    really sure exactly all the, how it's gonna
  • 00:30:00
    be impacted at that time. Thank you. That's
  • 00:30:05
    helpful. Are there any other questions for Ino
  • 00:30:09
    or or Katie on this? I think we've
  • 00:30:13
    had a good runaround on this one for
  • 00:30:14
    a few months. I'm I'm satisfied with it.
  • 00:30:17
    K. I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. We've
  • 00:30:22
    had a good runaround on this for a
  • 00:30:24
    few months, and I'm satisfied with the work.
  • 00:30:27
    When you lean in, it's a lot louder.
  • 00:30:31
    Comment from Katie. Thank you, Eric. I was
  • 00:30:36
    I was kind of worried coming into today
  • 00:30:38
    that you might have a problem with this,
  • 00:30:40
    so I'm so glad that you just stated
  • 00:30:41
    your support. Looking for a combo ballot, ad
  • 00:30:47
    here. Is there any opposition to that? Pretty
  • 00:30:51
    pretty long motion on the screen, but, does
  • 00:30:56
    that address our revisions desktop revisions today? It
  • 00:30:59
    it does. I added Okay. I see it.
  • 00:31:02
    Yeah. As revised by WMS to the yesterday's
  • 00:31:05
    ERCOT comments. So, Britney, just for my own,
  • 00:31:08
    understanding, you're gonna vote on the, the the
  • 00:31:12
    comments ERCOT filed plus the impact analysis. Right?
  • 00:31:16
    Yes, sir. And those will both go to
  • 00:31:17
    TAC. Thank you. Thank you. So, doesn't it
  • 00:31:21
    go to PRS because there's an impact? It
  • 00:31:24
    will. It'll make a courtesy stop, but in
  • 00:31:26
    the chain of command, it'll go to TAC.
  • Item 9 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Blake Holt
    00:31:31
    Thank you, Ino. Thank you, Britney. Let's move
  • 00:31:36
    to agenda item number nine, the new PRS
  • 00:31:40
    referrals. The first up is NPRR1263, sponsored by, Wind Energy Transmission Texas. I
  • 00:31:45
    wanna see if we have a the sponsor
  • 00:31:51
    available to to give us a quick overview
  • Item 9.1 - NPRR1263, Remove Accuracy Testing Requirements for CCVTs
    00:31:53
    of of this NPRR. Yes. Tony Davis with
  • 00:31:56
    Lett. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. NPRR1263 was submitted to, request the removal
  • 00:32:00
    Lett. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. NPRR163
  • 00:32:06
    of the five year accuracy testing requirement for
  • 00:32:09
    CCVTs due to the burden that it, puts
  • 00:32:12
    on the market. To perform this testing, the
  • 00:32:17
    CCVTs have to be removed from service, sent
  • 00:32:19
    back to the manufacturer for testing. And this
  • 00:32:23
    causes there's been several instrument transformers that have,
  • 00:32:28
    been destroyed during shipment. I've been checking with,
  • 00:32:32
    been destroyed during shipment. I've been checking with,
  • 00:32:38
    other ISOs. I did find out, there may
  • 00:32:42
    be a misstatement in mind, but, ISO does
  • 00:32:45
    not allow CCVT. However, I have verified Cal
  • 00:32:48
    ISO does, and and they do not have
  • 00:32:52
    any additional testing requirements. I'm still going through,
  • 00:32:58
    getting in contact with other ISOs to firm
  • 00:33:00
    up my understanding. I know PGM does allow
  • 00:33:03
    CCVTs and revenue metering and rec and requires
  • 00:33:07
    them above 500-kV. My understanding is
  • 00:33:12
    that this will probably go in front of
  • 00:33:14
    the meter working group for discussion. And, this
  • 00:33:18
    at this point, does anybody have any questions
  • 00:33:20
    or concerns? Seeing nothing in the room or
  • 00:33:29
    in the queue, NWG seems appropriate. But first,
  • 00:33:34
    let's let Brian, ask a question. Go ahead,
  • 00:33:37
    Brian. Hey there, Tony. Good morning. Brian Salazar
  • 00:33:41
    with Calpine. I just, I'm not real familiar
  • 00:33:44
    with the history of this requirement. I assume
  • 00:33:49
    it's to ensure that the metering is accurate,
  • 00:33:53
    so there's just not losses. Is that correct?
  • 00:33:57
    Well, the this was this has been in
  • 00:34:00
    the requirements since, the beginning of the opening
  • 00:34:06
    of the market. And I think the reason
  • 00:34:08
    behind is, traditionally, this was newer technology, and
  • 00:34:13
    there was, so supposed to be known drift
  • 00:34:17
    in the accuracy over time, in the beginning.
  • 00:34:22
    I've talked to manufacturers, and they said they
  • 00:34:25
    they have addressed that. And I actually did
  • 00:34:28
    reporting on, CCVT accuracy and fiber optic accuracies
  • 00:34:34
    back, between 02/2005 and 02/2010, I believe it
  • 00:34:40
    was, to the meter working group. And, during
  • 00:34:44
    that time, ERCOT's requirement is that these instrument
  • 00:34:48
    transformers be sent back to the manufacturer for
  • 00:34:51
    accuracy testing because there's no way to perform
  • 00:34:53
    that test in the field. And during that
  • 00:34:57
    time, there was only six instrument transformers that
  • 00:35:01
    were we had, original test reports that were
  • 00:35:04
    sent back, and we received as found test
  • 00:35:07
    reports. Out of those six, I don't have
  • 00:35:09
    access to those anymore, but my recollection is,
  • 00:35:14
    that, all six of those were in tolerance
  • 00:35:18
    when they were retested. One, I believe, was,
  • 00:35:22
    calibrated to move the accuracy on the upper
  • 00:35:27
    burden rating, to where it was a little
  • 00:35:29
    bit, more centered in the parallelogram. But it's
  • 00:35:37
    it's been there since the beginning of the,
  • 00:35:40
    open of the ERCOT, and that's one of
  • 00:35:42
    our. I have yet I've looked at several
  • 00:35:46
    CCVT test reports over the years. The only
  • 00:35:49
    only six have have been retested that we
  • 00:35:52
    got as found. I have yet to find
  • 00:35:55
    to ever witness any inaccuracies or drift myself
  • 00:36:00
    with CCVTs. In discussions with a manufacturer where
  • 00:36:05
    we did an on-site visit, the manufacturer did
  • 00:36:08
    state that if there if there was gonna
  • 00:36:10
    be any drift, it'd be at the higher
  • 00:36:12
    burden rating of 400 VA. My experience of
  • 00:36:16
    performing site audits for EPS metering for over
  • 00:36:19
    fifteen years, I've never seen a connected burden
  • 00:36:22
    above a 50 VA. So it's less than
  • 00:36:27
    half, less than half of what the burden
  • 00:36:30
    is where we would see any drift. So,
  • 00:36:33
    that's one reason why I'm sponsoring this NPRR.
  • 00:36:37
    I I understand. I I appreciate the context
  • 00:36:41
    and just, it might be helpful to hear
  • 00:36:44
    from the manufacturers, at the working group level,
  • 00:36:49
    about their experience too. It's my only comment.
  • 00:36:53
    Thank you. I'll I'll try to get, in
  • 00:36:57
    touch with some manufacturers and and see if
  • 00:36:59
    I can, get them involved when it goes
  • 00:37:01
    to the meeting working group. Alright. Thanks, guys.
  • 00:37:07
    It it sounds like we're moving towards sending
  • 00:37:12
    this to MWG. I believe we have to
  • 00:37:14
    take action on this. So hoping on the
  • 00:37:17
    combo ballot, we can, request that PRS continue
  • 00:37:21
    to table, for further review and and send
  • 00:37:23
    it to MWG. Any any opposition to that
  • 00:37:27
    approach? Hearing and seeing none, let's move on
  • 00:37:33
    to the next, NPRR, which is twelve sixty
  • 00:37:37
    four, creation of a new energy attribute certificate
  • 00:37:41
    program recently referred to us by PRS. Gonna
  • 00:37:48
    turn the ball over to Eric to to
  • 00:37:49
    lay this out for us. Hey, everybody. Eric
  • 00:37:54
    Goff on behalf of the Texas Energy Buyers
  • 00:37:56
    Alliance. For this item, my proxies have been
  • 00:38:01
    given to the office of pump utility council.
  • 00:38:05
    I wanted to walk through, this NPRR, see
  • 00:38:09
    if anyone has any questions about it, and,
  • 00:38:15
    maybe discuss what some next steps could be,
  • 00:38:18
    the way we would like to see them.
  • 00:38:22
    So, essentially, what this NPRR does is takes
  • 00:38:28
    the requirement from HP fifteen hundred that as
  • 00:38:32
    the, RPS goes away, or can't maintain a
  • 00:38:39
    voluntary market for Rex. And as some of
  • 00:38:44
    the primary users of that market, this is
  • 00:38:47
    our pitch for how we would like to
  • 00:38:49
    see that market work in the future. I
  • 00:38:52
    spent a lot of time working with the
  • 00:38:55
    Tiva members, on this as well as people
  • 00:39:01
    that are active participants in, the rec ERCOT.
  • 00:39:06
    And I believe that this represents kind of
  • 00:39:10
    the best in class way to do EACs,
  • 00:39:15
    going forward in order to kinda maximize their
  • 00:39:17
    usefulness to market participants. Up front, I just
  • 00:39:21
    wanna emphasize that this is not something that
  • 00:39:25
    would be required to be purchased the way
  • 00:39:29
    the RPS is. This is a purely voluntary
  • 00:39:31
    market. So once the RPS expires, if people
  • 00:39:34
    don't wanna use these, they don't have to.
  • 00:39:39
    And, we've proposed changing the name from, REC
  • 00:39:46
    to EAC because market participants that we've spoken
  • 00:39:51
    to would value the participation by, not just
  • 00:39:56
    renewable generators. So I've talked to people that
  • 00:40:00
    would like to have a methodology for energy
  • 00:40:03
    storage to make claims about, the content of
  • 00:40:07
    their charging energy. And I've spoken with people
  • 00:40:13
    that see this, to be a useful way
  • 00:40:16
    to account for low carbon fuel or carbon
  • 00:40:19
    capture. If we were going to have some
  • 00:40:22
    sort of dispatchable trading program, you know, as
  • 00:40:26
    has been contemplated a few times in the
  • 00:40:28
    legislature, this would enable that. And, this tracks
  • 00:40:36
    any Oh, I saw it. Attribute that people
  • 00:40:39
    would find it to be valuable. And to
  • 00:40:43
    the extent that there is a value that
  • 00:40:46
    it doesn't track, it creates another field that
  • 00:40:50
    allows for third party certification of a claim.
  • 00:40:55
    So ERCOT wouldn't have to be in the
  • 00:40:57
    business of confirming or, you know, denying that
  • 00:41:01
    an energy storage resource used solar, for example.
  • 00:41:04
    There's just a third party methodology that's posted
  • 00:41:07
    publicly available, goes through an annual audit process,
  • 00:41:12
    and willing buyers and willing sellers can choose
  • 00:41:14
    to use that. And then that third party
  • 00:41:16
    process will actually show up on the record
  • 00:41:18
    that this record was verified to meet the
  • 00:41:22
    this claim of the third party certification process.
  • 00:41:25
    So it's a fully transparent process to allow
  • 00:41:28
    a variety of attributes to be tracked. That's
  • 00:41:31
    one set of features here. Another set of
  • 00:41:34
    features is to have a pretty significant expansion
  • 00:41:37
    of the API, to allow programmatic trading, and
  • 00:41:45
    retirement. That will be especially necessary because we've
  • 00:41:53
    discovered that many people might wanna trade if
  • 00:41:57
    they trade it, like, a hourly granularity, it
  • 00:42:00
    starts to make sense to trade these at
  • 00:42:02
    the watt hour. And so that level of
  • 00:42:04
    detail, you got you have to automate that.
  • 00:42:07
    No one's gonna wanna trade watt hour certificates.
  • 00:42:10
    And so, or at least not manually. May
  • 00:42:14
    but there is interest in trading watt hour
  • 00:42:16
    certificates as you disaggregate, you know, a small
  • 00:42:20
    generator on an it's hourly production. In some
  • 00:42:23
    cases, you know, the watt hours start to
  • 00:42:25
    matter. And and so, this will allow those
  • 00:42:30
    to be just tracked automatically and disaggregated if
  • 00:42:33
    desired by the owner of EAC down to
  • 00:42:36
    the watt hour level. This also, allows ERCOT
  • 00:42:42
    to, delegate the functions of this to a
  • 00:42:48
    a third party software provider if they choose
  • 00:42:50
    to. And if they do that, there'd be
  • 00:42:53
    a a process to review that decision with
  • 00:42:55
    the stakeholders. And I think the main outstanding
  • 00:43:01
    question is how much is this gonna cost
  • 00:43:03
    to make this change? And I think as
  • 00:43:05
    everyone knows, we won't know that until ERCOT
  • 00:43:08
    does an impact analysis. And, so what I
  • 00:43:13
    would request of WMS is that you table
  • 00:43:18
    this for this and all the associated, revision
  • 00:43:22
    requests and, be ready for a vote, next
  • 00:43:28
    month because that will really help us get
  • 00:43:32
    to a key piece of information about people's
  • 00:43:34
    perspective on it, which is an IA. And
  • 00:43:37
    then once we have the IA, we can
  • 00:43:38
    decide, you know, any further, perspectives on it.
  • 00:43:43
    So that's our desire. I'm happy to answer
  • 00:43:45
    any questions, and take any feedback, and and
  • 00:43:48
    I appreciate the time with the WMS. Any
  • 00:43:57
    questions from Eric or for Eric? I see
  • 00:44:00
    Shams has jumped in the queue. Shams, go
  • 00:44:02
    ahead. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.
  • 00:44:07
    Okay. Yeah. So, Eric, I guess, for batteries
  • 00:44:10
    and stuff, when it's charging, if it's you
  • 00:44:13
    use a solar power, let's say, and then
  • 00:44:16
    it discharges that, let's say, 90% of that
  • 00:44:18
    comes out, aren't you double counting that energy
  • 00:44:22
    because you'll be giving credits to the solar
  • 00:44:25
    as well as the battery for the same
  • 00:44:26
    energy? No. Because, this methodology requires that, in
  • 00:44:35
    order for that third party claim to be
  • 00:44:37
    made, that there's a record that those solar,
  • 00:44:42
    certificates were, retired. Retired by the solar? By
  • 00:44:52
    the battery company or, yeah, by the battery
  • 00:44:56
    company. So it avoids double counting because you
  • 00:45:03
    need to show that those prior, prior certificates
  • 00:45:09
    were, expired or retired. Yeah. So you're retiring
  • 00:45:14
    the prior one, and then you're issuing new
  • 00:45:16
    ones for the same energy. I don't see
  • 00:45:20
    how that's not double counting. Well, I understand
  • 00:45:28
    your point that, the full transaction will result
  • 00:45:32
    in two sets of certificates. One, when the
  • 00:45:35
    energy was first produced by a solar generator,
  • 00:45:37
    and two, when it was, produced by a
  • 00:45:43
    battery. There's no obligation to buy these if
  • 00:45:48
    you don't want to, and those certificates will
  • 00:45:55
    be accounted for in the complete transaction record.
  • 00:45:57
    So you'll be able to see what EACs
  • 00:46:00
    were associated with the charging and discharging. Yeah.
  • 00:46:06
    I'm just concerned that, you know, you sort
  • 00:46:10
    of, sort of, making this product less valuable.
  • 00:46:16
    I mean, I would say my suggestion would
  • 00:46:18
    be keep it as close to the rack,
  • 00:46:20
    even keep the name so that it retains
  • 00:46:22
    the value and and, you know, consumers know
  • 00:46:25
    exactly what they're buying. That's just my thoughts.
  • 00:46:28
    Yes. I appreciate that. I got feedback from
  • 00:46:33
    a substantial number of large buyers, who many
  • 00:46:37
    of whom are members of the Text Energy
  • 00:46:40
    Buyers Alliance, as well as people that, will
  • 00:46:44
    be doing the transactions on a daily basis
  • 00:46:48
    as part of their commercial activities, and and
  • 00:46:51
    we think this approach will will work for
  • 00:46:53
    those market participants. Question from. Hey. This is
  • 00:47:09
    Naba from the. So quick question for Eric.
  • 00:47:13
    So you mentioned, the impact analysis is not
  • 00:47:17
    posted yet, but, is there anything that, you
  • 00:47:21
    know, the residential consumer should be aware about
  • 00:47:25
    these costs and things like that? Any other
  • 00:47:27
    associated cost, you believe if there is any?
  • 00:47:31
    Yeah. The, goal and desire is that this
  • 00:47:37
    is structured in a way to be relatively
  • 00:47:39
    low cost, and I'm hopeful that it will
  • 00:47:42
    be. But if it's not, then, we'd be
  • 00:47:46
    willing to talk about, you know, how to
  • 00:47:48
    pay for it with user fees or something
  • 00:47:50
    else. It might be the most cost effective
  • 00:47:54
    thing just to delegate the the functions of
  • 00:47:57
    this to a third party that might already
  • 00:47:59
    be doing this, and that might be the
  • 00:48:02
    most cost effective thing. But I think for
  • 00:48:06
    us to know that and make a good
  • 00:48:08
    decision around that, we just need to have
  • 00:48:10
    an IA. Okay. Next in the queue, Brian
  • 00:48:16
    Sams. Hey, Eric. Just generally, let me start
  • 00:48:22
    with the comment that, supportive of of, having
  • 00:48:27
    the ability to track attributes. And, just for
  • 00:48:33
    your purposes, might be good to have a
  • 00:48:35
    short deck that explains, how double counting doesn't
  • 00:48:39
    occur. Sure. And then, also just losses is
  • 00:48:45
    kinda something I'm curious about too. Yeah. So
  • 00:48:50
    sorry to interrupt you, Brian. I didn't mean
  • 00:48:52
    to. No. You got it. So the, third
  • 00:48:58
    party certification program for energy storage, the methodology
  • 00:49:03
    has to be publicly available. The third party
  • 00:49:07
    certifier has to have annual audits, and the
  • 00:49:10
    methodology has to account for how they deal
  • 00:49:13
    with charge cycles and losses. So in other
  • 00:49:19
    words, we're not specifying that losses have to
  • 00:49:22
    be done in a particular way because there
  • 00:49:26
    are a few different perspectives on that out
  • 00:49:28
    there, and I thought it would be prudent
  • 00:49:31
    to not get our ERCOT in the business
  • 00:49:32
    of verifying claims about that kind of stuff,
  • 00:49:36
    since it's not the core function of our
  • 00:49:37
    cat to do that. And so and the
  • 00:49:42
    alternative, I thought it made sense to require
  • 00:49:45
    that the methodology be transparently available, and only
  • 00:49:51
    be used by willing buyers and willing sellers,
  • 00:49:53
    and then just let the market figure out
  • 00:49:55
    the right way to account for for losses,
  • 00:49:58
    but just require that they'd be accounted for.
  • 00:50:04
    Thank you. And this is just my ignorance
  • 00:50:08
    about, best practices for losses regarding batteries. But
  • 00:50:13
    are there any kind of national standards or
  • 00:50:16
    anything like that that, like, the commodity futures,
  • 00:50:22
    folks use or just the So one example
  • 00:50:25
    of a national standard, for this is the
  • 00:50:28
    energy tag standard. And we worked with, them
  • 00:50:33
    in developing this methodology as well as others.
  • 00:50:38
    But if you if you wanna see a
  • 00:50:39
    methodology, there's one out there like that. And
  • 00:50:43
    there's also some case studies that people have
  • 00:50:45
    done to use that standard for ERCOT batteries
  • 00:50:49
    to see what it would look like, you
  • 00:50:52
    know, in practice and how it it might
  • 00:50:54
    change, charging and discharging behavior. And and those
  • 00:50:57
    are publicly available, case studies that some people
  • 00:51:01
    have done. Alright. Great. I'll take my curiosity
  • 00:51:05
    offline, but I I appreciate you indulging me
  • 00:51:07
    here. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Next up is
  • 00:51:12
    Roosba. Hey, Eric. This program, we think, is
  • 00:51:19
    very cool. I think a lot of, other
  • 00:51:21
    markets we're seeing similar programs. But I think
  • 00:51:24
    as I said last week, double counting is
  • 00:51:26
    definitely something we are curious about, especially on
  • 00:51:29
    batteries. But, also, my question this this week
  • 00:51:32
    for you is, does, you know, what about
  • 00:51:35
    this doesn't have to be clean attributes only.
  • 00:51:38
    Could it could, natural gas plants not low
  • 00:51:41
    carbon or coal plants still attributes? They could.
  • 00:51:44
    They could. Okay. So there's no, this is
  • 00:51:50
    a pun, but but there's no content requirement
  • 00:51:53
    for the claim of the the fuel source.
  • 00:51:56
    And so if people wanna trade Kohl certificates,
  • 00:52:01
    this would enable that. Got it. Thank you.
  • 00:52:08
    Next up, Preeti. Hi. I have a cold,
  • 00:52:14
    so I hope you can still follow what
  • 00:52:16
    I'm saying. I think my question was just
  • 00:52:18
    answered by the previous question. I wanted to
  • 00:52:22
    understand whether a battery storage facility that's charged
  • 00:52:26
    using, say, not low carbon energy could still
  • 00:52:29
    issue an EAC. And from what we just
  • 00:52:34
    said, I guess, the answer is yes. Yes.
  • 00:52:39
    Any generator that registers to be an EAC
  • 00:52:43
    generator would create, an EAC when they create
  • 00:52:48
    a megawatt hour, and it's up to buyers
  • 00:52:52
    and sellers to determine the value of that
  • 00:52:54
    EAC. You know? If if people highly value,
  • 00:52:58
    you know, two AM, you know, batteries that
  • 00:53:04
    are charged by solar power, then those might
  • 00:53:06
    be worth a lot. And if there's not
  • 00:53:09
    a demand for wood chips, you know, or
  • 00:53:13
    whatever else, just to give it some example,
  • 00:53:17
    then, it's they would not be worth a
  • 00:53:19
    lot. And so it's willing by, willing seller,
  • 00:53:22
    and all of the attributes will help people
  • 00:53:24
    figure out what they wanna buy and sell,
  • 00:53:26
    and there will be a bilateral market. Okay.
  • 00:53:31
    And, these certificates will be generated by both
  • 00:53:35
    existing as well as any new generation facility?
  • 00:53:39
    Any generator that registered to participate in the
  • 00:53:43
    program. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Nothing else in
  • 00:53:53
    the queue. Eric from the conversation today, do
  • 00:53:57
    you feel like you'll need to provide some
  • 00:54:00
    additional detail? Yeah. So it sounds like people
  • 00:54:04
    wanna walk through the the charge and discharge
  • 00:54:08
    cycle question. And so I I'd be happy
  • 00:54:10
    to do that at the next meeting. And,
  • 00:54:15
    it might be, it might be helpful to
  • 00:54:20
    cover that in a working group just to
  • 00:54:22
    make sure people's questions are answered in advance
  • 00:54:27
    of, you know, the time I'm asking them
  • 00:54:28
    to vote on something. So I I'd be
  • 00:54:31
    happy to present that to a a working
  • 00:54:33
    group that you choose. What do folks feel
  • 00:54:37
    that's the appropriate working group? WMWG seems like
  • 00:54:42
    a good spot, and I think the benefit
  • 00:54:44
    there is there will be another meeting before
  • 00:54:46
    the next WMS. So maybe same timeline, one
  • 00:54:50
    extra discussion. Okay. That'd be great. And I'd
  • 00:54:54
    be happy to answer anyone's questions offline. If
  • 00:54:57
    anyone wants to to get copies of anything
  • 00:54:59
    I I talked about, you know, reach out.
  • 00:55:04
    Sounds good. We we do need to take
  • 00:55:05
    action as a group on this to table
  • 00:55:08
    and refer. There'll have to be a a
  • 00:55:12
    separate ballot for this. But I see Britney
  • 00:55:15
    has pulled that up on the screen. And
  • 00:55:19
    then, Britney, I I guess we're okay to
  • 00:55:21
    proceed. Oh, we need to those are already
  • 00:55:25
    tabled. So to officially vote on this, I
  • 00:55:29
    have just learned we need a motion and
  • 00:55:31
    a second. I see a motion from Ian
  • 00:55:34
    Haley, and Shane Thomas is the second. Thanks.
  • 00:55:44
    Thanks, Blake. Thank you all. So the motion
  • 00:55:47
    is to request PRS continue to table twelve
  • 00:55:49
    sixty four for further review by WMSWG. We'll
  • 00:55:53
    start with the consumer segment. Rick? Yes. Thank
  • 00:55:56
    you. Alvaraj for Eric? Yes. Thank you. Preeti?
  • 00:56:05
    Yes. Thank you. And Preeti for Mark? Yes.
  • 00:56:10
    Thanks again. Thank you. Preeti Recovery. Blake? Yes,
  • 00:56:16
    ma'am. Lucas? Yes. Jim? Thank you. Yes. Can
  • 00:56:24
    you hear me? We can. Thank you. And
  • 00:56:27
    Joe Daniels? Yes, please. Thank you. Thank y'all.
  • 00:56:33
    Independent generator segment. Brian? Yes. Thank you. Katie
  • 00:56:39
    for Andy? Yes. Thank you. Tom? Yes. Thank
  • 00:56:45
    you. And Tom for Teresa? Yes. Thank you.
  • 00:56:50
    Thank you. Independent power marketers. Amanda? Yes. Thank
  • 00:56:55
    you. Ian? Yes. Thank you, Britney. Shane? Yes,
  • 00:57:01
    ma'am. Thank you. And Robert? Yes. Thank you.
  • 00:57:05
    Thank y'all. Independent retail electric providers, Bill? Yes.
  • 00:57:09
    Thanks. Joshua? Yes. Austin? Yes. And Roosevelt? Yes,
  • 00:57:21
    ma'am. Investor and utilities. Jim? Yes. Thanks, Britney.
  • 00:57:27
    Ivan? Yes. David? Yes. And Rob? Yes. Thank
  • 00:57:37
    y'all. And finally, municipal segment, Curtis? Yes. Mike?
  • 00:57:45
    Yes. Ken? Yeah. I think Ken is on
  • 00:57:54
    the phone. Might have caught him away. There
  • 00:57:59
    we go. I see you in the chat.
  • 00:58:00
    Thanks, Ken. And Fei. Yes. Thank you. Thank
  • 00:58:07
    you all. The motion carries unanimously. Thanks again.
  • Item 10 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
    00:58:15
    Thank you, Britney. On our the next agenda item,
  • 00:58:22
    are the revision requests tabled at PRS and
  • Item 10.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
    00:58:25
    referred to us. The first one is NPRR1070.
  • 00:58:29
    We heard an update last, month about this one. We're planning on seeing comments
  • 00:58:32
    from EDF in the the recent future or
  • Item 10.2 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
    00:58:35
    the upcoming future here. The other two, NPRR1202 and
  • 00:58:38
    NPRR1238. My understanding from the discussion last month is
  • 00:58:43
    there's no other action that WMS needs to
  • 00:58:47
    My understanding from the discussion last month is
  • 00:58:49
    there's no other action that WMS needs to
  • 00:58:52
    take on these. So I'm curious what the
  • 00:58:57
    group thinks about communicating back to, PRS that
  • 00:59:02
    we are done looking at these. I I
  • 00:59:04
    don't think we need to take an official
  • 00:59:06
    vote to to get these off of our
  • 00:59:08
    plate. But just for a quick reminder, 1202,
  • 00:59:12
    ERCOT is, looking into including the methodology
  • Item 10.3 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
    00:59:16
    suggested here in NPRR1234. And
  • 00:59:20
    then for NPRR1238, OWG is
  • 00:59:25
    expecting some comments, from ERCOT on this one.
  • 00:59:28
    So nothing on the WMS side of the
  • 00:59:30
    house that I'm expecting right now. Wanted to
  • 00:59:35
    put that out there for the group's, opinion
  • 00:59:39
    and to see what see what y'all think.
  • 00:59:47
    So, could you repeat, the latest update on,
  • 00:59:50
    NPRR1202? 1202, envisions a, an increased,
  • 00:59:59
    fee for large load interconnections as well as
  • 01:00:01
    refundable deposits. ERCOT is currently considering merging these
  • 01:00:07
    suggestions with the large load effort, NPRR1234. My understanding is there that's
  • 01:00:12
    still under internal review on their side. But
  • 01:00:16
    in terms of 1202, I I
  • 01:00:19
    don't think that that one we're anticipating taking
  • 01:00:21
    any action on at this point. Is that
  • 01:00:24
    more clear, 15? So in that case, would
  • 01:00:29
    this get taken off, and would the merged
  • 01:00:32
    twelve thirty four come to this group again
  • 01:00:36
    or not? I would expect if those changes
  • 01:00:40
    do come to pass, we would see them
  • 01:00:44
    on under WMS, and we'd have a chance
  • 01:00:46
    to give an opinion there. Okay. Thank you.
  • 01:00:49
    We've got a few folks in the queue,
  • 01:00:55
    Eric. So I just wanna be careful with
  • 01:00:57
    how I ask this question because I was
  • 01:01:00
    involved with writing one of these for a
  • 01:01:02
    different client. But, if we're waiting on our
  • 01:01:04
    cut's actions, why would we take action now?
  • 01:01:13
    Why don't we take And that was Are
  • 01:01:18
    you proposing to take action in advance of
  • 01:01:20
    what ERCOT does? I'm proposing communicating back to
  • 01:01:22
    PRS. We're done looking at these. There's no
  • 01:01:26
    other action for WMS to take. Okay. I'm
  • 01:01:28
    just trying to clear the queue, if it's
  • 01:01:30
    possible. Okay. Jodan? Yeah. Thank you. Jodan from
  • 01:01:33
    Golden State Electric ERCOT op. Blake, thank you
  • 01:01:45
    for this. I I would agree. I would
  • 01:01:48
    be supportive of sending this back to PRS,
  • 01:01:50
    and we're still open to the discussion if
  • 01:01:52
    comments come out from the OWG on 1238.
  • 01:01:54
    And and we need to have this discussion
  • 01:01:58
    And and we need to have this discussion
  • 01:02:00
    back at WMS. We could take that take
  • 01:02:02
    that position at PRS again. But for now,
  • 01:02:05
    I think we we have, as far as
  • 01:02:07
    I know, as far as I'm aware that
  • 01:02:08
    we've we've, completed all the discussions on the
  • 01:02:12
    WMWG side, and it's just kinda kinda waiting
  • 01:02:14
    here at WMS. And I think it would
  • 01:02:16
    be appropriate to at least consolidate back to
  • 01:02:17
    PRS, on December. Thank you. Thanks, Joden. Katie
  • 01:02:24
    Rich? Katie Rich with this, Russ, since I'm
  • 01:02:27
    the one that started it because I'm the
  • 01:02:28
    one that asked for it to be referred
  • 01:02:30
    over here, and then I resolved my issues
  • 01:02:32
    as we talk through it. So I would
  • 01:02:34
    be supportive of reporting back to PRS that
  • 01:02:36
    we are done with our review. Sounds good.
  • 01:02:41
    I'll I'll take that approach. Seems like there's
  • 01:02:44
    no opposition there. It might be more work
  • 01:02:45
    and, but it will make for a prettier
  • 01:02:49
    agenda next month. So so thank you all
  • Item 11 - Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
    01:02:52
    for that. The next agenda item are the,
  • 01:02:57
    revision request table, the WMS. These are all
  • 01:03:00
    related to NPRR1264. We've
  • 01:03:04
    already taken action on these last month, so
  • 01:03:08
    nothing we need to do today. And then
  • 01:03:14
    I think we're Oncor agenda item 12, which
  • 01:03:17
    is the start of our working group reports.
  • 01:03:20
    The first up is, CMWG. Do we have
  • 01:03:25
    a representative available to cover that? Alex or
  • 01:03:37
    Chen, are y'all available? I I am here.
  • 01:03:40
    I'm sorry. Had a muting challenge there. That's
  • 01:03:43
    alright. We we are here now. Yes, ma'am.
  • 01:03:46
    Okay. Great. I double moved. Okay. So thank
  • Item 12 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - CMWG Leadership
    01:03:50
    you for that. I will give the update
  • 01:03:53
    today, and then we'll hand it over to
  • 01:03:55
    Chen for next month. We did have a
  • 01:03:59
    fairly short meeting, this time. We didn't have
  • 01:04:02
    a lot of of items, so we did
  • 01:04:03
    have another great update on CRRs. We've continued
  • 01:04:08
    to appreciate the transparency and ongoing discussion of
  • 01:04:11
    this, of the of the changes and more
  • 01:04:15
    information about the challenges that they are seeing.
  • 01:04:16
    So we did get an update on the
  • 01:04:18
    how the solution time are going, recent slight
  • 01:04:24
    uptick, although the transactions for account holder are
  • 01:04:27
    lower, but still within a range that's that's
  • 01:04:31
    feasible. There was some discussion of what optimal
  • 01:04:35
    ranges for transaction limits per account holder might
  • 01:04:38
    be considering how the market is continuing to
  • 01:04:41
    grow. And, the final bullet point came about
  • 01:04:48
    from that of the suggestion of a survey
  • 01:04:51
    together, comprehensive market feedback to inform those changes
  • 01:04:55
    and what would actually be the right levels
  • 01:05:00
    in the future for products and limits and
  • 01:05:02
    bid minimums and get a little more feedback
  • 01:05:04
    from from participants who aren't in these meetings
  • 01:05:07
    because it's a small sample. So that was
  • 01:05:09
    one suggestion that it sounds like the ERCOT
  • 01:05:12
    will follow-up on. We also discussed the continuing,
  • 01:05:16
    market design, considering removing the multi month products.
  • 01:05:19
    They are continuing to look at what the
  • 01:05:21
    impacts of that would be in terms of
  • 01:05:23
    of time in improvements. The pricing report with
  • 01:05:28
    the hope of curbing participations, the belief for
  • 01:05:31
    price discovery that continuing to be explored with
  • 01:05:35
    the vendor on how that report would work.
  • 01:05:37
    Although, again and another reminder of the the
  • 01:05:41
    data that is already available, but knowing that
  • 01:05:44
    some people may be participating in order to
  • 01:05:47
    see prices that that aren't already, that aren't
  • 01:05:51
    already shared. And we do still expect to
  • 01:05:56
    have this conversation about a new product, a
  • 01:05:59
    time of use super peak that covers more
  • 01:06:01
    of the solar hours rather than the traditional
  • 01:06:03
    market peak hours, and we expect to have
  • 01:06:07
    a discussion about that in February from, from
  • 01:06:11
    the sponsor there. And then on the next
  • 01:06:16
    page, we did discuss the calendar, which you've
  • 01:06:22
    already covered today. I don't know if there's
  • 01:06:25
    anything, earth shattering here, but the, Samantha did
  • 01:06:29
    bring the calendar for CMWG to look at
  • 01:06:32
    first before bringing it here to WMS. And
  • 01:06:36
    we, again, appreciated that seeing that ahead of
  • 01:06:40
    time. I think that's on the comma ballot,
  • 01:06:43
    so we're good there. And on our other
  • 01:06:47
    items that were not, discussed at this meeting
  • 01:06:50
    but are relevant to your potentially a vote
  • 01:06:53
    today, On the last page, on other business,
  • 01:07:03
    we did have on our own for the
  • 01:07:05
    CMWG meeting dates, We it was noted that
  • 01:07:10
    there was a conflict with the schedule that
  • 01:07:11
    we had selected for this year. We missed
  • 01:07:15
    the closing auction dates for CRRs. And, also,
  • 01:07:22
    being on Thursday, we had set the schedule
  • 01:07:24
    before the PUC schedule came out, and there
  • 01:07:27
    are, of course, some conflicts there as well.
  • 01:07:29
    So we are looking at the full year
  • 01:07:33
    of meetings, and we'll be proposing, alternative dates
  • 01:07:37
    to be discussed at the next meeting before
  • 01:07:39
    that's finalized. We did change the January meeting.
  • 01:07:43
    So do note the the new date on
  • 01:07:46
    the calendar. We changed it to the to
  • 01:07:50
    the seventeenth from the thirteenth. So we pushed
  • 01:07:54
    it out a couple of days. And, so
  • 01:07:57
    just aware that that that date has changed.
  • 01:08:00
    And then the solar TOU CR product proposal
  • 01:08:03
    will be discussed next month. We already mentioned
  • 01:08:05
    that. The one that's on the agenda today,
  • 01:08:08
    NPRR1214 comment, that those did post
  • 01:08:13
    after I prepared this slide. So NPRR1214
  • 01:08:17
    has had comments posted by our ERCOT.
  • 01:08:21
    And looking at it, it is fundamentally consistent
  • 01:08:24
    with the version of draft comments that we
  • 01:08:26
    had reviewed at CMWG. And, so given that
  • 01:08:30
    discussion, that item is it's being, you know,
  • 01:08:34
    returned to WMS if you're ready to vote
  • 01:08:37
    on it or not. I mean, it is
  • 01:08:38
    a a rather complex NDRR, but the consensus
  • 01:08:43
    was that the the concept is valid, and
  • 01:08:45
    then ERCOT and the sponsors did a lot
  • 01:08:48
    of work to to get it, consistent and
  • 01:08:52
    workable. They did remove all the references to
  • 01:08:55
    anything happening before RTC, So it's all to
  • 01:08:58
    be implemented post RTC, and ERCOT staff did
  • 01:09:02
    add several sections to make it complete and
  • 01:09:05
    address all the changes that did need to
  • 01:09:07
    happen to implement the change of this locational,
  • 01:09:12
    deployment, reliability deployment at or, not not being
  • 01:09:17
    system wide, but being locational. So that did
  • 01:09:20
    impact a lot of calculations. So it is
  • 01:09:22
    a fairly technical NPRR. But CMWG has completed
  • 01:09:28
    review of this and the the the essentially,
  • 01:09:31
    the comments that did get filed by or
  • 01:09:32
    caught last week. And that's it for our
  • 01:09:41
    January meeting. It wasn't it was a short
  • 01:09:43
    meeting. So I'm gonna call my name for
  • 01:09:51
    me? Yeah. I'm gonna call my name here.
  • 01:09:53
    This is Blake Holt with LCRA. Appreciate the
  • 01:09:56
    update on NPRR1214 and appreciate ERCOT's
  • 01:10:00
    work on on cleaning up, some of the
  • 01:10:04
    the language there. From our perspective, we've we've
  • 01:10:08
    just now really started diving in since we
  • 01:10:11
    had have a cleaned up version now. And
  • 01:10:14
    we have some questions, around the cost allocation
  • 01:10:18
    that I would like to take some time
  • 01:10:19
    to to think about further, namely the reliability
  • 01:10:24
    deployment indifference payment is now going to be
  • 01:10:29
    paid out notally instead of system wide, and
  • 01:10:34
    I'm seeing that the cost allocation for that
  • 01:10:37
    is is still on a market wide basis,
  • 01:10:41
    just a peanut butter LRS. And so I'm
  • 01:10:43
    curious if there's a more creative way to
  • 01:10:46
    to make that cost allocation more fair. I
  • 01:10:49
    I don't have a, a fleshed out, suggestion
  • 01:10:54
    right now, but would like to take some
  • 01:10:56
    time to think about that. I also am
  • 01:10:58
    curious if if if Shams or or maybe
  • 01:11:02
    even ERCOT have thought through that at all
  • 01:11:05
    or any other members here have any feedback
  • 01:11:08
    on that. Alex, sorry. Did you have something?
  • 01:11:11
    No. I I agree. And, if Shams in
  • 01:11:13
    there, I'll just make my brief comment. I
  • 01:11:15
    know Sean can answer it more elegantly than
  • 01:11:17
    I can. I do I hear that. I
  • 01:11:20
    do think the concept is that the reliability
  • 01:11:24
    benefit is still system wide, but the goal
  • 01:11:30
    here is to get the response to be
  • 01:11:33
    in the correct location because it actually damages
  • 01:11:35
    reliability when the when the when the incentive
  • 01:11:40
    is in the wrong area. But the system
  • 01:11:43
    wide need for capacity is is is a
  • 01:11:47
    system benefit. But I will definitely step out
  • 01:11:49
    of that and let Sean's have a go.
  • 01:11:52
    Yeah. Yeah. I understand. There's there's in my
  • 01:11:54
    mind, there's two flavors of reliability deployments. One
  • 01:11:57
    that has a more system wide benefit, like
  • 01:11:59
    a like a load resource deployment. The second
  • 01:12:03
    one could be a ruck for congestion that
  • 01:12:07
    may, you know, have an increased payment to
  • 01:12:13
    to a certain zone. That's the one I
  • 01:12:17
    I wanna think more about. But, Shams, I
  • 01:12:20
    see you're in the queue. Do you have
  • 01:12:22
    a comment? Yeah. So I think, you know,
  • 01:12:26
    Alex did a good job in describing that
  • 01:12:28
    issue. And, you know, currently, also, if you
  • 01:12:30
    look at the Ainsley service imbalance payment, that's
  • 01:12:33
    also done system wide. So we didn't want
  • 01:12:35
    to change that. And it's it's difficult to,
  • 01:12:39
    you know, do it more granularly when this
  • 01:12:42
    is sort of an indifference payment. And, historically,
  • 01:12:46
    we've done this on a system wide basis
  • 01:12:48
    for the reasons that Alex described. Alright. I
  • 01:13:00
    see see no one else in the queue.
  • 01:13:02
    What what's the will of the group here?
  • 01:13:04
    Actually, there's Katie Rich. Katie, do you have
  • 01:13:06
    something? Thanks, Blake. So I have a couple
  • 01:13:10
    of questions, but, I understand now that, we've
  • 01:13:15
    we've said that it's not gonna be before
  • 01:13:17
    RTC. It sounds like ERCOT has been
  • 01:13:19
    some more supportive. I know that the ramp
  • 01:13:23
    rate has changed, but we're not sure the
  • 01:13:25
    sixty minutes is really the right amount of
  • 01:13:27
    time. It may be something less than that.
  • 01:13:30
    So it sounds like we've worked through some
  • 01:13:32
    of the implementation issues, and ERCOT's changes have
  • 01:13:35
    have reflected that, but it might be a
  • 01:13:37
    good time to think about the practical effects.
  • 01:13:39
    I know you just mentioned one of those,
  • 01:13:41
    but, you know, wondering if maybe we could
  • 01:13:44
    use some backcast from RTC to look at
  • 01:13:47
    what the impacts of this might be. And
  • 01:13:51
    then, you know, really, that idea of there
  • 01:13:53
    possibly being a negative r t p RDPA
  • 01:13:56
    is kind of hard to think about. So,
  • 01:13:57
    you know, one of the questions is how
  • 01:14:00
    often would we expect to see a negative
  • 01:14:02
    RDPA? That's the first question. And then, you
  • 01:14:07
    know, we're getting a lot of large loads
  • 01:14:09
    on the system and and backup gen from
  • 01:14:12
    from that. Is it possible that a resource
  • 01:14:14
    that's currently paid in the at the cap
  • 01:14:16
    wouldn't be paid at the cap under this
  • 01:14:19
    new concept. So I don't know if Shams
  • 01:14:23
    wants to speak to that or if that's
  • 01:14:25
    something that that is a little longer term.
  • 01:14:29
    Go ahead, Shams. Yeah. So ERCOT did provide
  • 01:14:32
    us some, backcast analysis on particular days and
  • 01:14:36
    stuff, and we looked at those. We can
  • 01:14:39
    definitely I guess ERCOT can repost that or
  • 01:14:42
    it's in the it's in one of the
  • 01:14:44
    meeting pages. On your your second question, you
  • 01:14:51
    said resource is not getting capped. Could you
  • 01:14:53
    repeat it? Could you expand on that? Yeah.
  • 01:14:56
    So, basically, under the current setup, you know,
  • 01:15:00
    there are resources being paid at the cap.
  • 01:15:01
    Is it possible that under your new concept,
  • 01:15:04
    under the local RDPA, they would no longer
  • 01:15:06
    be paid at the cap? At the cap,
  • 01:15:10
    meaning the system wide of a cap? Right.
  • 01:15:15
    Yeah. No. If the RDPA results let's it's
  • 01:15:17
    a system wide issue, and the RDPA does
  • 01:15:20
    result in, prices going to the system wide
  • 01:15:23
    cap. And if there's no congestion on the
  • 01:15:25
    system, then, yeah, the resource all resources would
  • 01:15:28
    receive that, that RDPA price. If there is
  • 01:15:33
    local issues that results in just local prices
  • 01:15:36
    going to the cap, then only resources that
  • 01:15:38
    are impacting, positively impacting that constraint, that is
  • 01:15:42
    helping that constraint would get that price. So
  • 01:15:46
    it's, whereas today, it's not sort of, averaged
  • 01:15:50
    in where you don't get where the resource
  • 01:15:52
    all resources get sort of a averaged price.
  • 01:15:55
    Here, you you would see the specific prices
  • 01:15:59
    based on the location whether it's helping or
  • 01:16:01
    hurting, the problem. Sorry. You know, so we
  • 01:16:08
    did, you know, there were requests for more
  • 01:16:13
    analysis, but ERCOT, basically, with RTC and stuff,
  • 01:16:18
    was not able to provide us at at
  • 01:16:20
    this point more analysis. So I would just
  • 01:16:23
    they did do a lot of days, in
  • 01:16:26
    the back cast, and those are very informative
  • 01:16:28
    because they look at all different kind of
  • 01:16:30
    situations, in the market. And we've already I
  • 01:16:34
    mean, I really appreciate all the work that
  • 01:16:36
    ERCOT done to go through a fine, you
  • 01:16:39
    know, poem and go through all the, even
  • 01:16:42
    the smallest impacts on the protocols and stuff
  • 01:16:44
    and get all that incorporated. Austin did a
  • 01:16:47
    great job in these comments to, include all
  • 01:16:50
    those changes. But conceptually, you know, we've we've
  • 01:16:54
    looked at those numbers. We've studied those. And,
  • 01:17:00
    I think the group felt comfortable moving forward
  • 01:17:04
    with, with the analysis ERCOT has provided. I'm
  • 01:17:07
    just concerned that ERCOT and ERCOT can speak
  • 01:17:09
    to this, but they might not have the
  • 01:17:11
    time before RTC to do additional analysis. See
  • 01:17:20
    Gordon in the queue, but just wanted to
  • 01:17:23
    confirm when you say it's been posted. Was
  • 01:17:25
    it posted and discussed at CMWG? Yes. It
  • 01:17:32
    was at CMWG. Yes. Next up, Eric Goff.
  • 01:17:42
    Shams, to Katie's other point about RDPA going
  • 01:17:45
    negative, that's a feature of the proposal. Right?
  • 01:17:49
    It's intent it's intended to do that in
  • 01:17:51
    some circumstances depending on the locational, you know,
  • 01:17:55
    calculations. Yes. It is. So if, you know,
  • 01:17:59
    like, if you're hurting a constraint, you could
  • 01:18:02
    possibly, get a negative. But in in ERCOT,
  • 01:18:07
    analysis, there were very few resources and instances
  • 01:18:11
    of it going negative. But, yeah, it's a
  • 01:18:13
    it's a feature of the design so that
  • 01:18:15
    Yeah. Yeah. You know? That that being a
  • 01:18:19
    part of it as well as, you know,
  • 01:18:21
    the other analysis that, ERCOT did was persuasive
  • 01:18:25
    to us. And, you know, at some point,
  • 01:18:26
    we're looking forward to to voting for this.
  • 01:18:29
    You know, it'd be great if we could
  • 01:18:30
    do a full backcast to figure out that,
  • 01:18:33
    you know, annually, uplift would have been reduced
  • 01:18:37
    by a certain quantity. But I think that
  • 01:18:39
    the analysis that ERCOT did demonstrated kind of
  • 01:18:42
    the, you know, why uplift would be reduced.
  • 01:18:45
    And so if we can do that while
  • 01:18:47
    sending better price signals, sometimes that, you know,
  • 01:18:51
    they'll be higher than they would have been
  • 01:18:52
    as soon as they would have been lower.
  • 01:18:53
    You know, I think that's something we can
  • 01:18:55
    get behind. Yeah. Thanks, Eric. I think that's
  • 01:18:58
    exactly right. That's those air ERCOT analysis are
  • 01:19:01
    very informative and, you know, anyone, can get
  • 01:19:06
    access to that through the CMWG meeting page.
  • 01:19:08
    And it's been a while. I mean, it's
  • 01:19:10
    probably over a year ago that it was
  • 01:19:12
    posted. So so, yeah, it might you might
  • 01:19:17
    have to go through back a few meetings,
  • 01:19:19
    but you'll find it there. Yeah. There are
  • 01:19:21
    several hosted, presentations that are that are eliminates
  • 01:19:26
    a lot of this. But agree you all
  • 01:19:29
    need to go back, you know, and scan
  • 01:19:31
    several meetings back to to find it all.
  • 01:19:38
    Next up, Gordon Drake. Thank you very much.
  • 01:19:42
    And, I I wanted to to echo what
  • 01:19:44
    what Shams had had said. We we are
  • 01:19:47
    at our our analytical cap for what we're
  • 01:19:50
    able to to support for further analysis. And
  • 01:19:53
    so if if that's necessary in order to
  • 01:19:56
    support this conversation, then that that will have
  • 01:19:58
    to wait quite some time, but I would
  • 01:20:00
    point folks to the analysis that has already
  • 01:20:02
    been provided. Thank you, Gordon. So what's the
  • 01:20:10
    the will of the group on on this
  • 01:20:11
    one? Alex, I believe you're done with your
  • 01:20:13
    presentation. So I wanted to check the will
  • 01:20:17
    of the group on on 12/14. Yeah. I
  • 01:20:20
    was expecting based on kind of Bill's request
  • 01:20:23
    to vote on this this month, but if
  • 01:20:26
    you need a little bit more time, could
  • 01:20:27
    you just give us a sense of how
  • 01:20:28
    much time you might want? So I think
  • 01:20:31
    the next is the seventeenth, and I can
  • 01:20:35
    commit to think thinking more about my question
  • 01:20:37
    before then Okay. And perhaps having a discussion.
  • 01:20:42
    But that's probably a month Okay. On my
  • 01:20:45
    end. So then I, you know, I don't
  • 01:20:47
    know if we need to take any action
  • 01:20:48
    today then. Alrighty. I appreciate it. Yeah. Next
  • 01:20:57
    up, meter working group. We have a representative
  • 01:21:04
    available for that. Michael Bloom, are you are
  • 01:21:25
    you available today? I see you online, Michael.
  • 01:21:39
    I'm wondering if you're having, mute issues, audio
  • Item 13.2 - Break
    01:21:42
    issues. Alright. We're we're due for a break
  • 01:21:55
    after this. I'm I'm wondering if we can
  • 01:21:57
    just go ahead and take that break now,
  • 01:21:59
    and then maybe when we return at, 11:02,
  • 01:22:05
    that those audio issues will be, corrected. So
  • 01:22:09
    let's take a break until 11:02. Thanks. Oh,
  • 01:22:27
    I'm sorry. You're getting, like, a fourth screen?
  • 01:22:30
    Oh, yeah. Every time I looked at your
  • 01:22:32
    desk, I had been convinced. Like, shit. Well,
  • 01:22:36
    I'm just gonna say income. He knows me
  • 01:22:44
    too well soon. Yeah. Yeah. How's your mind
  • 01:22:49
    going? Okay. Just still sitting there on that.
  • 01:22:57
    Now pass myself. I'm just listening there now.
  • 01:22:59
    It looks like Tony Davis is on a
  • 01:23:01
    hot mic. Now the last Hey, Steve. Reedy,
  • 01:23:08
    you have a hot mic. I gotta reach
  • 01:23:11
    out to, manufacturing. I I I think it's
  • 01:23:15
    Tony Davis. I I just unmuted it to
  • 01:23:18
    to let him know. Who's your manufacturing? Lease,
  • 01:23:22
    trench, and g. Those are what's it called.
  • 01:23:25
    Oh, it's French. Yeah. Those those are the
  • 01:26:23
    Hello. Could somebody online please give me a
  • 01:26:25
    mic check? Thank you. We could hear you.
  • 01:26:38
    Heard you. Okay. Thank you. Was that Michael?
  • 01:26:43
    We can hear you in here in the
  • 01:26:45
    room. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Be a
  • 01:26:51
    few more minutes. Alright. One minute warning. Alright.
  • 01:32:06
    Welcome back, everyone. Michael, wanna check your audio
  • 01:32:10
    again. Are are you good to go? Yes.
  • 01:32:13
    I'm good to go. Can you hear me?
  • Item 13 - Meter Working Group - MWG - MWG Leadership
    01:32:15
    Yes, sir. We can hear you. Alright. Thanks
  • 01:32:18
    everybody for your patience on that audio issue.
  • Item 13.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG - Possible Vote
    01:32:21
    So the SMOGRR being presented, SMOGRR028,
  • 01:32:28
    These are edits from, a previous copy of
  • 01:32:33
    the SMOGRR that the mirror working group met
  • 01:32:36
    on, several times to create this revision, in
  • 01:32:47
    the meeting in the meter working group meeting
  • 01:32:49
    on the December 19 is when this copy
  • 01:32:54
    was, created this this edition, where we had
  • 01:33:00
    the the stakeholders, including TDSPs, ERCOT, and, other,
  • 01:33:07
    participants, make revisions. One of the, main changes,
  • 01:33:15
    include responsibilities of the, the owners of the
  • 01:33:23
    devices, the series reactors to provide TDSPs with,
  • 01:33:29
    the needed, values to perform compensation. And and,
  • 01:33:41
    up to also change the methodology for the
  • 01:33:45
    compensation from a transformer loss, methodology to a
  • 01:33:50
    more line loss, related, calculation. So that's a
  • 01:34:01
    summary of of the Peter Working Group edits.
  • 01:34:05
    Any questions? Any questions for Michael? One second
  • 01:34:24
    for folks online. Britney's reconnecting. So, Michael, am
  • 01:34:43
    I am I correct in that there was,
  • 01:34:46
    consensus or support from MWG on on this
  • 01:34:51
    SMOGRR moving forward? Yes. I guess I'd open
  • 01:34:57
    it up to the group. If there are
  • 01:34:59
    no other questions for Michael, is this a
  • 01:35:02
    a good combo ballot item? Is there any
  • 01:35:05
    opposition for for adding that? Looks like it's
  • 01:35:13
    gonna be combo ballot, and we'll rate wait
  • 01:35:16
    a few minutes to get reconnected here. And
  • 01:39:53
    we're back. Thank y'all for working through that.
  • 01:39:57
    I know that's that's frustrating, but went rather
  • 01:40:01
    smoothly, I think. So the the last bit
  • 01:40:05
    of discussion, Britney, we I think we're all
  • 01:40:10
    in agreement to add, SMOGRR028 to the
  • 01:40:14
    combo ballot with the January 14 comments. So
  • 01:40:19
    you have it captured there. Thanks for the
  • 01:40:22
    work there, Michael. Anything else to add from
  • 01:40:26
    the meter working group's perspective? No. Nothing I
  • 01:40:31
    can think of. Alright. Thank you, sir. Moving
  • 01:40:36
    on in the agenda to the supply analysis
  • 01:40:39
    working group. I believe Pete is online to
  • 01:40:43
    to handle the report this month. Pete, are
  • 01:40:45
    you there? Yes. I am. Everyone can hear
  • 01:40:49
    me okay? Yes, sir. Great. Great. So, yeah,
  • 01:40:56
    let's move on to the next slide, please.
  • Item 14 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - SAWG Leadership
    01:41:02
    So the voting item, that come up is
  • 01:41:04
    the the leadership, for 2025. And, at the
  • 01:41:10
    SAWG meeting, the consensus was to keep Kevin
  • 01:41:14
    as the chair and, Greg Lackey as one
  • 01:41:17
    of the co chairs and and myself as
  • 01:41:19
    a co chair. So, is this something that
  • 01:41:22
    goes on the, the combo ballot? Yes, sir.
  • 01:41:28
    We we have that handled. Okay. Excellent. So
  • 01:41:33
    the rest of the meeting, was focused on
  • 01:41:36
    three major areas. There were a number of
  • 01:41:39
    presentations on DRRS, and, I gave an update
  • 01:41:43
    on where we are with, the capacity demand
  • 01:41:46
    and reserves report preparation and a review of
  • 01:41:49
    of of the changes that are gonna be
  • 01:41:51
    reflected in that. And then I gave an
  • 01:41:53
    overview of, modeling simulation studies and analysis projects,
  • 01:41:59
    that are going going on in 2025. The
  • 01:42:02
    next slide, please. So regarding DRRS, there were
  • 01:42:11
    three presentations made. The first one was by,
  • 01:42:14
    Andrew Reimers of, independent market monitor. So, the
  • 01:42:19
    link to that presentation is included on the
  • 01:42:21
    slide. And, as I recall, the the two
  • 01:42:25
    key things there was the, you know, changing,
  • 01:42:28
    the start time window for, you know, available
  • 01:42:31
    resources, shortened shortening that to, from two hours
  • 01:42:35
    to one hour as an optional change. And
  • 01:42:38
    then, sort of the main proposal part of
  • 01:42:40
    that was reducing the RUC study period, down
  • 01:42:44
    to four to five hours. So, there there
  • 01:42:48
    was obviously a lot of comments about that.
  • 01:42:51
    The next one, Chomp gave a presentation, you
  • 01:42:55
    know, representing Hunt Energy Network. That's the bullet
  • 01:42:59
    two. Again, that's, the link is provided here.
  • 01:43:03
    And the gist of his presentation was, so
  • 01:43:06
    called bifurcation concept and treating, you know, new
  • 01:43:11
    long duration resources differently than, than old ones.
  • 01:43:16
    And then, the third one, was, from Gordon
  • 01:43:20
    Drake at ERCOT. And his presentation, really covered
  • 01:43:25
    a redesign recap. And then, he also gave
  • 01:43:29
    a summary of some of the general feedback
  • 01:43:32
    that was received Oncor ERCOT proposal that was
  • 01:43:35
    sent out in November. And there there were
  • 01:43:37
    two, two options there. And one of the
  • 01:43:41
    big, I think, takeaways is, you you know,
  • 01:43:44
    how to appropriately ensure real time outcomes, are
  • 01:43:48
    working properly, while at the same time making
  • 01:43:51
    sure that the statutory language is followed. Alright.
  • 01:43:56
    Next slide, please. Okay. On the the CDR
  • 01:44:06
    preparation, so, we are gonna be releasing it
  • 01:44:10
    next week, and probably closer to to midweek.
  • 01:44:14
    I'll just do that much. We don't have
  • 01:44:16
    an exact date for that yet. And then,
  • 01:44:19
    to emphasize that, we're including, basically all the
  • 01:44:23
    the loads that, we've been calling, house bill
  • 01:44:28
    fifty sixty six. So there was a fair
  • 01:44:31
    amount of discussion on that. So we're reflecting
  • 01:44:33
    all the all the officer letter loads that
  • 01:44:35
    that have been identified. And then I went
  • 01:44:39
    over some of the new tabs in the
  • 01:44:40
    report. Here's here's a laundry list of them.
  • 01:44:45
    These were, reviewed at a prior SAWG meeting.
  • 01:44:47
    So this was just an update for those
  • 01:44:49
    who might not have been at at the
  • 01:44:50
    the SAWG meeting, where we viewed for reviewed
  • 01:44:54
    it. Then item three, again, there's some tabs
  • 01:44:57
    that, that we eliminated just because, they provide
  • 01:45:00
    redundant information. And then, let's see. Let's move
  • 01:45:06
    on to the next slide. Okay. So I,
  • 01:45:15
    did a summary of, Servum simulation projects. And
  • 01:45:20
    for those who don't know, Servum is the
  • 01:45:22
    the reliability model, that we've used to examine,
  • 01:45:26
    the reliability standard. And we use that for
  • 01:45:29
    other purposes to support NERC's, probabilistic reliability assessments
  • 01:45:33
    and such. So, the main projects here, what
  • 01:45:38
    we wanna do is, you know, advance how
  • 01:45:40
    we, represent weather events in that model. And
  • 01:45:44
    so we're we're doing a deep dive, for
  • 01:45:46
    example, looking at at January. Why that's the
  • 01:45:50
    focus? It's because all the big, winter weather
  • 01:45:52
    events, have occurred in December and February. And
  • 01:45:56
    so what we wanna do is do some
  • 01:45:57
    statistical analysis so that we can portray, you
  • 01:46:00
    know, January, appropriately in in terms of the
  • 01:46:03
    risk. So, again, it could be a big
  • 01:46:06
    storm in January. We wanna make sure that,
  • 01:46:09
    that we, you know, characterize that that January
  • 01:46:11
    risk, properly. And then also looking at, you
  • 01:46:14
    know, event duration. So we wanna, again, do
  • 01:46:17
    a deep dive on that to to see
  • 01:46:19
    if we can make improvements as to how
  • 01:46:21
    we express, you know, event durations in the
  • 01:46:23
    model. And then one of the big changes
  • 01:46:26
    we plan on making is to change the
  • 01:46:29
    server model from just a single, basically, ERCOT
  • 01:46:34
    zone to a, you know, multi zonal representation.
  • 01:46:39
    And by doing that, we can start to
  • 01:46:41
    look at, what the impacts of the of
  • 01:46:44
    generation deliverability, is in in relation to, you
  • 01:46:49
    know, transfer limits and congestion, things like that.
  • 01:46:52
    Now how does that impact, you know, reserve
  • 01:46:54
    margins and other things that we traditionally look
  • 01:46:57
    at? So that's a fairly complicated project. And
  • 01:47:01
    then, what we wanna do is, actually go
  • 01:47:05
    through kind of on a trial run basis,
  • 01:47:07
    our reliability standard assessment. And this is something
  • 01:47:11
    that, we're required to start up in next
  • 01:47:13
    year, but kind of going through a a
  • 01:47:16
    dry run will be useful, so we can
  • 01:47:17
    anticipate any any complications or challenges, when we
  • 01:47:21
    actually have to start doing the, the reliability
  • 01:47:24
    assessment. Okay. And then for, item five here,
  • 01:47:29
    this is one of the strategic goals of
  • 01:47:31
    ERCOT is to just to look at probabilistic
  • 01:47:34
    analysis and and try to integrate that into
  • 01:47:37
    transmission planning to take, you know, advantage of
  • 01:47:40
    of that type of risk representation. So, we're
  • 01:47:43
    gonna be looking at that, you know, pretty
  • 01:47:46
    carefully doing some, some limited proof of concept
  • 01:47:49
    analysis to see how we can, incorporate what
  • 01:47:52
    we get out of the survey model into
  • 01:47:54
    the transmission, you know, planning realm. ELCC methodology
  • 01:48:01
    refinement. So the upcoming CDR, that's the description
  • 01:48:05
    to switch over to effective load carrying capabilities,
  • 01:48:08
    and we implemented, again, this, this pretty elaborate
  • 01:48:11
    methodology to get at that. And what we
  • 01:48:14
    wanna do is, again, look at that more
  • 01:48:16
    carefully for the next iteration when we, know,
  • 01:48:18
    recalculate ELC themes. And then, finally, again, we
  • 01:48:24
    do this every year now for, for NERC.
  • 01:48:26
    It's a probabilistic assessment. So that's it in
  • 01:48:30
    terms of projects. I think is that the
  • 01:48:33
    last slide? Yep. On to the question slide,
  • 01:48:44
    we have Shane Thomas in the queue. Shane,
  • 01:48:46
    please go ahead. Yep. Shane Thomas with Shell.
  • 01:48:50
    First of all, just, you know, I think
  • 01:48:53
    it's a really good sign that we're getting
  • 01:48:54
    ahead of this work for the I think
  • 01:48:55
    the reliability standard study is gonna be very
  • 01:48:59
    influential. And so getting a chance to talk
  • 01:49:02
    through these processes and procedures and the data
  • 01:49:05
    that's feeding into them is gonna be extremely
  • 01:49:07
    important. I like that we're already looking at
  • 01:49:11
    the weather event modeling enhancements there to make
  • 01:49:14
    sure that everything's getting properly weighted. I think
  • 01:49:16
    that previously, there might have been a tendency
  • 01:49:20
    to overstate the probability of a second eerie
  • 01:49:25
    type event. And so I think it'll be
  • 01:49:30
    important as part of this process for, stakeholders
  • 01:49:34
    to have the ability to look at that
  • 01:49:36
    weather input data too so we can see
  • 01:49:38
    how it's being weighted in, throughout the the
  • 01:49:41
    process. So I just wanted to state that
  • 01:49:43
    and also state, you know, you know, excited
  • 01:49:47
    to continue this conversation and see where, see
  • 01:49:50
    all these things go. I think we're creating
  • 01:49:52
    a lot of new, you know, prediction tools
  • 01:49:57
    here, and we're getting a lot more, better
  • 01:50:00
    data. So it's all all headed in the
  • 01:50:02
    right direction. Yeah. Thanks for that that feedback.
  • 01:50:07
    And, yeah, Oncor the dealing with weather events,
  • 01:50:10
    that that is important. And and, certainly, we
  • 01:50:13
    have to look at that at the lead
  • 01:50:15
    in, developing the assumptions report. So that that's
  • 01:50:18
    really the first step, is to have that
  • 01:50:20
    prepared and and certainly get everyone's input on
  • 01:50:22
    that, you know, well before we file that
  • 01:50:24
    with the commission. So, again, thanks for your
  • 01:50:27
    comments. Next up, Gordon Drake. Thank you very
  • 01:50:32
    much. Gordon Drake from ERCOT. I I just
  • 01:50:34
    wanted to make one clarification on the, slides
  • 01:50:38
    regarding DRRS, and, Pete did a really great,
  • 01:50:42
    job of of summarizing the various presentations. But
  • 01:50:45
    on the slide, it made reference to a
  • 01:50:47
    workshop that we have scheduled for February 28.
  • 01:50:50
    The focus of that workshop is gonna be
  • 01:50:53
    on working through some of the the real
  • 01:50:54
    time issues that I noted in in my
  • 01:50:56
    presentation and and also were part of the
  • 01:50:58
    discussion on the IMM presentation. But it will
  • 01:51:01
    be a subsequent workshop where we dive again
  • 01:51:03
    into the mechanics of of each of the
  • 01:51:05
    various proposals. So just wanted to make make
  • 01:51:07
    clear that there's a a multi workshop approach
  • 01:51:10
    to this and that the first is focused
  • 01:51:12
    on those those real time issues and and
  • 01:51:14
    coming to a a foundational understanding on that
  • 01:51:17
    rather than bringing all these concepts forward again
  • 01:51:19
    for further discussion. Thanks, Gordon. Very helpful. Yep.
  • 01:51:24
    Thanks, Gordon, for that. Appreciate it. Next up,
  • 01:51:29
    Trevor. Hey. Trevor Sacca, LCRA. Thanks for this
  • 01:51:34
    summary. Quick question on the reliability standard assessment
  • 01:51:37
    prototype. Agree with, with Shane that, you know,
  • 01:51:41
    really encouraged to see ERCOT getting a head
  • 01:51:43
    start on this, ahead of the 2026 statute.
  • 01:51:47
    Just wondering if you could add a little
  • 01:51:48
    bit more color on how that that prototyping
  • 01:51:51
    process would look like. What would stakeholders, you
  • 01:51:55
    know, get to weigh in on? Would we
  • 01:51:56
    be seeing, you know, some preliminary simulation results
  • 01:51:59
    or modeling assumptions? Just wondering what context you
  • 01:52:02
    can add around that process for 2025. Yeah.
  • 01:52:07
    We'd be happy to. So, really, the first
  • 01:52:10
    step is to, you know, updating the model,
  • 01:52:12
    the serve a model. And so, you know,
  • 01:52:14
    we've got all these these feed ins of
  • 01:52:16
    of research. So, you know, for example, the
  • 01:52:19
    winter weather event, that's really happening, you know,
  • 01:52:22
    very quickly. And so, you know, all that
  • 01:52:25
    will be fed in. We wanna update SAWG
  • 01:52:27
    and certainly WMS on how that's going. And
  • 01:52:31
    certainly when we're, converting the model into a
  • 01:52:34
    a zone representation, we'll be giving some presentations
  • 01:52:37
    on that and, obviously, what what the outcome
  • 01:52:40
    of that exercise is that I think they'll
  • 01:52:42
    be critical so everyone is comfortable with the
  • 01:52:44
    direction we're headed on that. So, again, there's
  • 01:52:48
    gonna be these different phases. So you got
  • 01:52:50
    your, you know, your initial research, updating the
  • 01:52:52
    model with the new load forecast, which I
  • 01:52:55
    believe is, probably in March or or April,
  • 01:52:59
    maybe April. I I understand that there may
  • 01:53:01
    be a several week delay in getting that
  • 01:53:04
    out the door. So, yeah, it it's it's
  • 01:53:07
    feeding data into the model. And, again, that's
  • 01:53:10
    something that, we can certainly share with stakeholders
  • 01:53:13
    sort of the overall process, and and to
  • 01:53:16
    characterize, the different changes to to data. Anything
  • 01:53:20
    different than what we would typically be done
  • 01:53:22
    in the past, for updating the serve amount.
  • 01:53:25
    You know, the, you know, one example would
  • 01:53:26
    be, you know, market design aspects and DRRF
  • 01:53:30
    at some point, you know, if if, if
  • 01:53:32
    all parties feel comfortable in how we can
  • 01:53:34
    represent that in the model. And then finally,
  • 01:53:38
    we'll get to the point where we'll actually
  • 01:53:39
    run the simulation results. And, again, there'll be
  • 01:53:42
    an opportunity, I think, to share that, what
  • 01:53:45
    the outcome of that is, with stakeholders, and
  • 01:53:48
    and really kinda give a scorecard on how
  • 01:53:52
    the outcome of that was. Again, if there's
  • 01:53:54
    any any issues that we come up, you
  • 01:53:56
    know, how will we, address that before we
  • 01:53:57
    start the actual, reliability assessment? So, yeah, it's
  • 01:54:02
    gonna be sort of continuous update situation throughout
  • 01:54:05
    the year. And so, again, there'll be various
  • 01:54:07
    touch points, and we'll coordinate, in getting SAWG
  • 01:54:11
    updated, you know, as we can make progress
  • 01:54:13
    throughout the year. Does does that answer your
  • 01:54:15
    question? Yeah. That was perfect. Thank you so
  • 01:54:18
    much. Okay. Great. Thanks, Pete. We have a
  • 01:54:26
    clear queue. Appreciate the report. You're welcome. We've
  • 01:54:31
    got another another one in the queue. Sorry
  • 01:54:33
    about that. Eric Goff. Hey, Pete. Have you
  • 01:54:36
    done any backcast of certain results on what
  • 01:54:41
    you predicted the generation investment would be versus
  • 01:54:43
    what it was, or is it too soon
  • 01:54:46
    to do that still? Yeah. We haven't, we
  • 01:54:50
    haven't gone that route yet. I think, obviously,
  • 01:54:52
    the focus is in in trying to represent,
  • 01:54:55
    new market outcomes, calibrate the model to to
  • 01:54:59
    what we see. So that that's obviously down
  • 01:55:02
    the road a bit. So, yeah, we're we're
  • 01:55:03
    not there yet to be able to do
  • 01:55:04
    that. Alright. Answer your question, Eric? Alright. I
  • 01:55:20
    think we're good to go now, Pete. Appreciate
  • 01:55:22
    the report. Moving on to the wholesale market
  • 01:55:27
    working group and, Amanda Frazier. Good morning. Thanks.
  • 01:55:38
    Good morning. Whitney, are you gonna drive for
  • 01:55:52
    me, or am I supposed to? Perfect. You
  • 01:56:02
    can move all into the first slide. Keep
  • Item 15 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - WMWG Leadership
    01:56:08
    going. So we started our meeting, with Susan
  • 01:56:16
    Hildebrand, came and talked to us about EPA
  • 01:56:18
    impacts on ERCOT generation. If you guys will
  • 01:56:21
    remember, that is something on the pending item
  • 01:56:24
    list assignments from TAC that WMS is, supposed
  • 01:56:29
    to keep on top of. So it was
  • 01:56:30
    a really good presentation. We learned a lot
  • 01:56:33
    about the executive orders that, president Trump has
  • 01:56:36
    signed and what those impacts may be. A
  • 01:56:39
    lot of good questions around, what did it
  • 01:56:42
    mean for preannounced retirements of ERCOT generation and,
  • 01:56:47
    you know, of course, a lot of uncertainty
  • 01:56:49
    still about what the impacts would be. And,
  • 01:56:52
    I did get Susanna to agree offline, to
  • 01:56:55
    come and give us an update later in
  • 01:56:57
    the year. And if there are other ERCOT
  • 01:57:01
    participants who have insights on EPA impacts, we
  • 01:57:06
    would welcome you to come and talk to
  • 01:57:07
    us as well. Next slide. So we did
  • 01:57:15
    have two NPRRs that we discussed that are
  • 01:57:18
    ready for action at WMS. This first one,
  • 01:57:22
    NPRR1190, I noticed is not listed
  • 01:57:25
    as noticed for a vote here at WMS,
  • 01:57:28
    so I'm not sure how we'll handle that.
  • 01:57:31
    But, just a recap of the discussion, this
  • 01:57:33
    was a proposal that had been raised by
  • 01:57:36
    Bill Barnes. He has since filed formal comments,
  • 01:57:40
    on NPRR1190, to create a system
  • 01:57:46
    where, ERCOT will review payments that are made
  • 01:57:51
    for HDL overrides. And, if they exceed the
  • 01:57:55
    threshold amount, we'll come back to TAC with
  • 01:57:58
    a report on those payments and a suggestion
  • 01:58:02
    for how to reduce those payments going forward.
  • 01:58:06
    So, one, I don't know if we wanna
  • 01:58:09
    take a vote today since it's not listed,
  • 01:58:11
    but, I'd open it up for for Bill
  • 01:58:15
    just talker. It looks like, you know, has
  • 01:58:16
    a statement as well. No. We still waiting
  • 01:58:21
    for questions. Bill, are you available to just
  • 01:58:23
    for transparency to give a overview of your
  • 01:58:26
    comments? Yeah. I I actually filed, the concept
  • 01:58:33
    that we've been discussing for the past few
  • 01:58:35
    months, which is intended to be a compromise
  • 01:58:39
    and address, the concerns that we've heard from
  • 01:58:42
    some of the consumer groups around the potential
  • 01:58:45
    for 1190 to cause a significant increase
  • 01:58:48
    in HCL overwrite payments, which, we agree and
  • 01:58:53
    support that, that concern by the consumers. We
  • 01:58:58
    that is not what's intended by these changes.
  • 01:59:00
    So in order to address that, we, filed
  • 01:59:03
    comments to establish a a annual, essentially, settlement
  • 01:59:07
    cost trigger of $10,000,000, which is based on,
  • 01:59:11
    historical settlements annual settlements for HDL overrides on
  • 01:59:15
    the kinda high side of history. That trigger
  • 01:59:18
    would if we exceed that, then that tells
  • 01:59:22
    us that something is happening where, what we've
  • 01:59:27
    been normally used to for HCO override payments
  • 01:59:29
    has caused it to increase substantially. So let's
  • 01:59:32
    take a look. Is it the fact that,
  • 01:59:34
    additional contracts are being considered in the settlement,
  • 01:59:37
    or is it some operational issue, where ERCOT
  • 01:59:40
    may be using an HDL override more than
  • 01:59:43
    we expect and put that under the microscope
  • 01:59:45
    and figure out if there are ways to
  • 01:59:47
    change it so they can reduce those costs.
  • 01:59:49
    So this is directly responsive to the concerns
  • 01:59:51
    and the reason why it was remanded back
  • 01:59:53
    to TAC. I haven't gotten any alternative ideas
  • 01:59:59
    or proposals, but, we think this is reasonable
  • 02:00:04
    and fair. And the kind of comment I
  • 02:00:07
    had, which I wasn't I didn't realize when
  • 02:00:09
    I looked at the procedural record on November,
  • 02:00:11
    it was it's tabled at TAC. So I
  • 02:00:14
    don't I don't think we need to vote
  • 02:00:16
    here or it it never made it back
  • 02:00:18
    to PRS or WMS, is what it looks
  • 02:00:20
    like. I I didn't realize that. So it's
  • 02:00:22
    still sitting at TAC, so I think this
  • 02:00:23
    can be brought back up at the next
  • 02:00:24
    TAC meeting, if TAC members so choose to
  • 02:00:27
    vote on it. Ino? Well, I wasn't planning
  • 02:00:36
    on adding anything to it, but we are
  • 02:00:40
    comfortable with the language that Bill that Reliance
  • 02:00:43
    submitted. Eric Goff? I've sent this at WMWG,
  • 02:00:53
    and I appreciate that Bill made the effort
  • 02:00:56
    to try to find middle ground. Unfortunately, for
  • 02:01:01
    some of the members of the consumer segment,
  • 02:01:05
    I think we're just still opposed to this
  • 02:01:06
    in principle. So we're anticipating voting no attack
  • 02:01:11
    probably on a motion that passes. So, we'll
  • 02:01:15
    just wanna make sure that we've established our
  • 02:01:18
    reasoning for voting no clearly in the record.
  • 02:01:21
    And, so we'll, you know, provide, you know,
  • 02:01:27
    as procedure, allows, that reasoning to tact the
  • 02:01:32
    board and the public utility commission. Thanks, Eric.
  • 02:01:37
    Next up, Bill Barnes. Yeah. I just want
  • 02:01:40
    to respond to, comments. Completely understand if you
  • 02:01:45
    guys can't get there on this one. I
  • 02:01:47
    did find your your argument compelling enough, though,
  • 02:01:49
    to to present this concept. I think it's
  • 02:01:51
    an improvement over the original, language of November
  • 02:01:55
    that was attack, last time. I agree, Bill.
  • 02:01:58
    I think it got a little bit better.
  • 02:02:00
    Yep. Understood. It it Yep. Alright. And then
  • 02:02:06
    Britney. Thanks, Blake. As y'all know, subcommittees can
  • 02:02:12
    take up anything at any time. So if
  • 02:02:14
    you'd like to vote on eleven ninety, we
  • 02:02:15
    just need to waive notice. And that is
  • 02:02:18
    a two thirds threshold, so it'd be a
  • 02:02:20
    separate ballot. So open to the will of
  • 02:02:23
    the group. I guess if we don't take
  • 02:02:25
    it up for a vote, I I can
  • 02:02:27
    just communicate back to TAC the discussion that
  • 02:02:29
    we've heard at WMWG and here today, and
  • 02:02:34
    might have the same outcome. I don't like,
  • 02:02:37
    I don't think it's necessary because it wasn't
  • 02:02:39
    noticed. I'd prefer not to do that. Sounds
  • 02:02:42
    good, Bill. Seems like we're all in agreement.
  • Item 15.2 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs - WMWG - Possible Vote
    02:02:47
    Amanda, if she can proceed. Excellent. The next
  • 02:02:54
    NPRR that is ready for WMS to take
  • 02:02:57
    up is MBRR1256. This one we've discussed a
  • 02:03:01
    couple of months at WMWG. At the last
  • 02:03:04
    meeting, ERCOT brought comments back in that was
  • 02:03:07
    responsive to some of the concerns that had
  • 02:03:09
    been raised. There were no further comments, on
  • 02:03:13
    ERCOT's filed comments, and so that one is
  • 02:03:16
    ready for WMS to take up. Sorry. I
  • 02:03:21
    should give some context. This has to do
  • 02:03:23
    with the settlement. If an ESR is selected
  • 02:03:26
    if an energy storage resource is selected for
  • 02:03:29
    a must run alternative. And so the concerns
  • 02:03:33
    that were raised at WMWG had to do
  • 02:03:35
    with how would ERCOT validate the state of
  • 02:03:38
    charge on such a resource, if it were
  • 02:03:41
    selected as an MRA. Alright. Sounds like WMWG
  • 02:03:48
    conversation is included, and we have the ability
  • 02:03:53
    to to take action here today. Combo? Combo
  • 02:03:58
    would be preferable. Is there anyone opposed to
  • 02:04:01
    that? Or any questions about the language we
  • 02:04:04
    have Ino in the room? Alright. Seems like
  • 02:04:09
    we're we're good with the combo adding that
  • 02:04:12
    to the combo, Britney. Alright. Good good to
  • 02:04:29
    move forward probably on, the rest of your
  • 02:04:32
    presentation, Amanda. Oh, one second. I I see
  • 02:04:36
    a a question from Christie. Christie, please go
  • 02:04:38
    ahead. I'm sorry. When you had the combo
  • 02:04:41
    ballot up on the screen, I think there
  • 02:04:43
    may have been a typo. On NPRR263, it says to request PRS to
  • 02:04:47
    continue to table NPRR264. Should
  • 02:04:49
    that okay. Thank you. That's all. Thanks. Wow.
  • 02:04:54
    Great catch. Thanks, Christy. Actually, on that comma
  • 02:04:57
    ballot, wasn't it WMWG that was supposed to
  • 02:05:11
    review that one? That was the EAC Oncor
  • 02:05:13
    1263 was a was a different one. Oh,
  • 02:05:18
    it's a different one. Yes. Okay. 1263
  • Item 9.2 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program
    02:05:21
    it's a different one. Yes. Okay. 1264
  • 02:05:24
    is the one coming to WMWG. Correct. Gotcha.
  • 02:05:27
    Alright. So then we had one more, NPRR
  • 02:05:30
    that we continue to discuss at, WMWG. This
  • 02:05:33
    is the STEC NPRR that has to do
  • 02:05:36
    with a payment that would be made to
  • 02:05:39
    a resource or tripped offline, should it be
  • 02:05:43
    put into an n minus zero contingent or
  • 02:05:46
    contingency situation by a reliability action taken by
  • 02:05:49
    ERCOT. And so there were some questions raised
  • 02:05:53
    at the last meeting about whether this would
  • 02:05:56
    apply to constraint management plans, which was not
  • 02:05:59
    the situation that ERCOT could foresee this happening
  • 02:06:02
    in. It was it was more likely to
  • 02:06:04
    happen in response to a verbal dispatch instruction.
  • 02:06:08
    And so the suggestion was made that the
  • 02:06:10
    authors might want to try to clarify that
  • 02:06:13
    in the language, and, we'll continue to discuss
  • 02:06:16
    this this next month. I see Lucas has
  • 02:06:20
    jumped into the queue. Lucas, would you like
  • 02:06:22
    to add anything? Hello, Blake. Can you hear
  • 02:06:27
    me? Yes, sir. Alrighty. Right. Thanks, Amanda. That
  • 02:06:34
    was a good summary of discussion. I guess,
  • 02:06:39
    just from what you have there on the
  • 02:06:41
    slide, was just going to to know that,
  • 02:06:49
    the comment on NPRR1190, we are reviewing,
  • Item 15.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG - Possible Vote
    02:06:55
    similar and separate threshold. For NPRR1229, payments.
  • 02:07:00
    So, that's under review. And then the question
  • 02:07:05
    on, whether a CMP, should be included being,
  • 02:07:10
    that, the likely scenario, to motivate the NPRR1229
  • 02:07:15
    payment is the VDI. So we did
  • 02:07:18
    look at that and we kind of talked
  • 02:07:20
    to, ERCOT a little bit and, just without,
  • 02:07:27
    although it is a best practice or ERCOT's
  • 02:07:30
    practice to reach out to a resource or
  • 02:07:32
    an RE or the QSE, regarding a CMP,
  • 02:07:38
    it's not a requirement. Nor does the resources
  • 02:07:43
    input necessarily compel ERCOT, to, you know, to
  • 02:07:49
    listen, I guess. And, also, there could just
  • 02:07:52
    be the situation where, timing could not allow,
  • 02:08:00
    you know, the normal, discussion to take place
  • 02:08:03
    between all the impacted parties. So we're kinda
  • 02:08:06
    leaning. We're actually gonna, just be leaving the
  • 02:08:10
    the CMP, included, in in the NPRR. So
  • 02:08:16
    the that's where we are on that and,
  • 02:08:19
    just also to comment on the NPRR1229
  • 02:08:23
    or the the threshold on, NPRR1229 payments as
  • 02:08:27
    well. Thank you. Thanks, Lucas. I see Freddy
  • 02:08:33
    Garcia has a comment. Freddy, go ahead, please.
  • 02:08:37
    Sure. Yeah. Freddie Garcia with ERCOT operations. Yeah.
  • 02:08:40
    I just wanted to add on to a
  • 02:08:41
    little bit what Lucas was was, referred to
  • 02:08:44
    on the CEP. ERCOT's normal practice is is
  • 02:08:48
    to reach out to all impacted entities before
  • 02:08:52
    a CMP is approved. But in in the
  • 02:08:54
    event that, you know, you know, resource we
  • 02:08:59
    didn't reach out to a resource entity for
  • 02:09:01
    whatever reason, the way the 12/29 is written
  • 02:09:06
    that they would still qualify for this repayment
  • 02:09:09
    if if they didn't have the opportunity to,
  • 02:09:13
    agree to or not agree to a CMP.
  • 02:09:16
    So, you know, just based on our our
  • 02:09:20
    conversations with with with, it it seems like
  • 02:09:24
    it might make sense to to to leave
  • 02:09:26
    CMP in the language. But I just wanted
  • 02:09:29
    to add a little bit of color on
  • 02:09:30
    that. Great. That's helpful, and we'll, further that
  • 02:09:38
    discussion at the next WMWG meeting. And then
  • 02:09:43
    I think the last slide that might be
  • 02:09:45
    the last slide. No. Of course not. We're
  • 02:09:51
    still talking about card and CRRBA, balancing account
  • 02:09:55
    allocation. Austin Roselle gave an update on, ERCOT's
  • 02:10:00
    analysis. They're going to come back to our
  • 02:10:03
    next meeting with all of the data that
  • 02:10:06
    was requested, and VISTA is going to come
  • 02:10:10
    with data as well on their, proposal. And
  • 02:10:13
    so we will have that discussion at our
  • 02:10:15
    next meeting and hope to bring back some
  • 02:10:17
    recommendations to the neck the next WMS meeting.
  • 02:10:22
    And that's it. Very good. Thank you, Amanda,
  • 02:10:26
    for the report. And that takes us on
  • 02:10:31
    to our combo ballot. I just wanna check
  • Item 17 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - DSWG Leadership
    02:10:35
    real quick. DSWG does not have a report
  • 02:10:38
    this month. I don't know the the leadership.
  • 02:10:44
    They did not submit Okay. Okay. The presentation,
  • 02:10:47
    but they might have a verbal. Let let's
  • 02:10:50
    go ahead and check with with leadership real
  • 02:10:51
    quick. Do they have anything to bring to
  • 02:10:53
    the table before we take a vote? Right.
  • Item 16 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Blake Holt
    02:11:03
    Not seeing or hearing anything. I think we
  • 02:11:06
    can get to the combo ballot vote. But
  • 02:11:08
    before we can officially vote, we need a
  • 02:11:11
    a motion and a second. Where did you
  • 02:11:14
    first? Actually, yes. I got ahead of myself
  • 02:11:18
    here. We had a suggestion for a creative
  • 02:11:23
    way we could communicate back to PRS, our
  • 02:11:27
    discussion on NPRR1202 and NPRR1238. And Britney has highlighted it there
  • 02:11:29
    that we're essentially going to advise PRS that
  • 02:11:33
    we've concluded discussion on both of these, to
  • 02:11:36
    serve as an official paper trail back to
  • 02:11:40
    serve as an official paper trail back to
  • 02:11:43
    back to them. But any any concerns with
  • 02:11:47
    adding that Oncor the combo? Mister Goff? I
  • 02:11:54
    think the way this is characterized, it's fine,
  • 02:11:57
    but I wanna note again that I was
  • 02:12:00
    one of the original authors of 12 o
  • 02:12:02
    two for a different client. But because we're
  • 02:12:04
    not weighing in on the pro or con,
  • 02:12:06
    I want to leave it up to y'all
  • 02:12:07
    to decide if you want that to be
  • 02:12:09
    a separate ballot or not. It's up up
  • 02:12:12
    to y'all on how you wanna handle it.
  • 02:12:15
    I think we'll we'll officially need to do
  • 02:12:18
    a separate ballot Yeah. This 12/2002, and break
  • 02:12:22
    that out. So I wasn't anticipating this. I'd
  • 02:12:24
    like to give my my proxy to Naba.
  • 02:12:28
    Naba, do you are you able to to
  • 02:12:31
    take, Eric's proxy for this one? Yeah. Thank
  • 02:12:36
    you. Eric, who are you representing for 12/00/2002?
  • 02:12:44
    I'm sorry. That one was Lancia. Bill, do
  • 02:12:51
    you have a comment before we move forward?
  • 02:12:54
    Yeah. Related to 12/00/2002 and 12:34, I I
  • 02:12:59
    think there is still it's more like a
  • 02:13:01
    public service announcement, I guess. There's still some,
  • 02:13:07
    stakeholder support, which doesn't include ERCOT, for increasing
  • 02:13:12
    the fees in December to accomplish some of
  • 02:13:17
    the goals of 12/00/2002. I don't think this
  • 02:13:20
    is something I get worked out at at
  • 02:13:22
    PRS if there's a decision to go that
  • 02:13:24
    route. But, despite ERCOT's concerns, I think there's
  • 02:13:29
    still, some interest in moving forward with some
  • 02:13:34
    of the concepts in 12/00/2002, in a much
  • 02:13:37
    simpler form in December. So just making folks
  • 02:13:40
    aware of that that are interested in that
  • 02:13:41
    topic. Thanks. Thanks, Bill. And just for transparency,
  • 02:13:46
    l l c r a is supportive of
  • 02:13:48
    of that effort as well. I see Bob's
  • 02:13:52
    also in in the queue. Bob, anything from
  • 02:13:54
    you? Yeah. Is my audio okay? A little
  • 02:13:58
    muffled. Can you yell? Yeah. I'll try to
  • 02:14:01
    yell. Just real quickly on 12:02, we're expecting
  • 02:14:07
    an update still on our time on the
  • 02:14:10
    fee for instead of their 14,000, I think
  • 02:14:14
    they're looking at something higher than that. That
  • 02:14:17
    may solve the problem with $12.00 2, but
  • 02:14:20
    recognize that there was definitely stakeholder support for
  • 02:14:24
    getting additional ERCOT staff based on fee, you
  • 02:14:28
    know, fee basis rather than a general uplift
  • 02:14:31
    to the whole market. But we'll see what
  • 02:14:33
    they come back with, in 01/02/1934. Thank you.
  • 02:14:38
    Thank you, Bob. And from what I heard,
  • 02:14:40
    ERCOT is, from from your comment, what I
  • 02:14:43
    heard is ERCOT is still, at the drawing
  • 02:14:46
    board looking how to incorporate it incorporate this
  • 02:14:49
    into the one, two, three, four as well
  • 02:14:51
    as, the values that they're considering for the
  • 02:14:54
    fees. Yeah. And and to be clear, they
  • 02:14:57
    are not ERCOT is not thinking about any
  • 02:15:00
    kind of recurring fee. So it'd be it'd
  • 02:15:04
    be just updating that one time $14,000 number
  • 02:15:08
    is my understanding of what they're doing. Thank
  • 02:15:10
    you. Gotcha. And for folks in the room,
  • 02:15:13
    I think Bob said, ERCOT is not considering
  • 02:15:16
    the recurring fee envisioned in 12/00/2002, rather just
  • 02:15:20
    an increase to, the regular fee. I see
  • 02:15:26
    that Britney has drafted up a separate ballot
  • 02:15:31
    for, our advisement to PRS. We'll need a
  • 02:15:36
    a motion and a second on this one.
  • 02:15:45
    Shane with, emotion. Do you have one? We
  • 02:15:53
    need a second. Ivan hopped in with the
  • 02:15:57
    second. Thank you, Blake, and, thanks to the
  • 02:16:04
    members for providing this additional clarity to PRS.
  • 02:16:08
    Begin with consumer segment. Rick? Yes. Thanks. Naba
  • 02:16:13
    Raj for Eric. Yes. Thank you. Preeti? Yes.
  • 02:16:19
    And Preeti for Mark? Yes again. Thank you.
  • 02:16:23
    Thank you. Cooperative segment, Blake? Yes. Lucas? Yes.
  • 02:16:31
    Jim? Yes. Thank you. And Joden? Yes. Thank
  • 02:16:36
    you. Thank you. Independent generator segment. Brian? Yes.
  • 02:16:44
    Thank you. Katie for Andy? Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:16:49
    Tom? Yes. And Tom for Theresa? Yes. Thank
  • 02:16:55
    you. Thank you all. Independent Power Marketers, Amanda?
  • 02:17:01
    Yes. Thank you. Ian? Yes. Thank you, Britney.
  • 02:17:05
    Shane? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And Robert? Yes.
  • 02:17:09
    Thank you. Thank you. Independent retail electric providers.
  • 02:17:14
    Bill? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Austin? Yes. And Ruzbeh?
  • 02:17:25
    Yes. Thank you. Thank y'all. Investor owned utility
  • 02:17:30
    segment, Jim? Yes. Thanks, Britney. Ivan? Yes. David?
  • 02:17:35
    Yes. And Rob? Yes. Thank y'all. And finally,
  • 02:17:39
    municipal segment, Curtis? Yes. Mike? Yes. Ken? Ken,
  • 02:17:50
    I'm watching for you in the queue. Alright.
  • 02:18:00
    Thank you. Anne Fei? Yes. Thank you. Thank
  • 02:18:04
    you all. The motion carries unanimously. Thanks again.
  • 02:18:13
    Thank you, Britney. Now back to the combo
  • 02:18:20
    ballot. I believe we will still need a
  • 02:18:26
    a motion and a second. I do have
  • 02:18:28
    one clarification on VCMRR 52. We'd like to
  • 02:18:33
    make this motion a little bit longer. Thanks
  • 02:18:36
    to Oncor and Troy for working offline. We
  • 02:18:39
    if you if it pleases WMS, we can
  • 02:18:41
    send this with a recommended priority of twenty
  • 02:18:44
    twenty six and a rank of forty seven
  • 02:18:46
    twenty to, TAC. Just a couple of notes,
  • 02:18:52
    from Troy. This will not be, workable until
  • 02:18:58
    after RTC+B, but this is the
  • 02:19:01
    next in line priority and rank. Is this
  • 02:19:06
    ever gonna be implemented, you know? Right? Isn't
  • 02:19:09
    the plan to do this manually forever, basically?
  • 02:19:13
    I don't see enough. Well, we can find
  • 02:19:15
    out later. But No. The plan is, you
  • 02:19:18
    know, it will be manually until they can
  • 02:19:22
    do the automation, which it's sounding like he's,
  • 02:19:26
    Troy is making this, you know, the next
  • 02:19:28
    possible thing after, RTC. Alright. If I have
  • 02:19:32
    any questions, I'll raise them later. But that
  • 02:19:35
    sounds fine. Feel free to ask me. Yeah.
  • 02:19:53
    Right. Given that explanation and the constraints with
  • 02:19:57
    RTC and E knows availability, this seems reasonable
  • 02:20:01
    to me. Any, concerns with this addition? Alright.
  • 02:20:09
    We'll need a a motion and a second
  • 02:20:11
    to approve the combo ballot. Eric's got one
  • 02:20:19
    motion on the table. We've got Rob for
  • 02:20:22
    the second. Thank you. Thank you all for
  • 02:20:27
    your patience as we cleaned up this relatively
  • 02:20:30
    long combo ballot for WMS. Appreciate your help.
  • 02:20:38
    Alrighty. We'll start with the consumer segment. Rick?
  • 02:20:41
    Yes. Eric? Yes. Preeti? Yes. And Preeti for
  • 02:20:49
    Mark? Yes. Thanks. Okay. Cooperative segment, Blake? Yes.
  • 02:20:56
    Lucas? Yes. Jim? Thank you. Yes. Thank you,
  • 02:21:01
    Britney. And Joden? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
  • 02:21:07
    Independent generator segment, Brian? Yes. Thank you. Katie
  • 02:21:13
    for Andy? Yes. Tom? Yes. And Tom for
  • 02:21:19
    Theresa? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Independent power
  • 02:21:25
    marketers. Amanda? Yes. Thank you. Ian? Yes. Thank
  • 02:21:30
    you, Britney. Shane? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And
  • 02:21:35
    Robert? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Independent retail
  • 02:21:40
    electric providers, Bill? Yes. Joshua? Yes. Austin? Yes.
  • 02:21:51
    And Ruzbeh? Yes. Thank you. Investor owned utilities,
  • 02:21:58
    Jim? Yes. Thanks, Britney. Ivan? Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:22:02
    David? Yes. And Robin? Yes. Yep. And, last
  • 02:22:08
    but not least, municipal segment, Curtis? Yes. Mike?
  • 02:22:14
    Yes. Thanks. Ken? And can the, the yes
  • 02:22:22
    is is that new? Is that a fresh
  • 02:22:25
    yes? Thank you very much. And Fei? Yes.
  • 02:22:29
    Thank you. Alright. Thank you all again. Motion
  • 02:22:35
    carries unanimously. Appreciate your help. Thanks for that,
  • Item 18 - Other Business - Blake Holt
    02:22:39
    guys. Given no report for the demand side
  • Item 18.1 - Review Open Action Items
    02:22:43
    working group, in other business, I I wanted
  • 02:22:47
    to touch on an item that, Amanda had
  • 02:22:50
    already covered, which was the the EPA regulation
  • 02:22:54
    item. I think it's appropriate to keep that
  • 02:22:56
    open for discussion for the rest of the
  • 02:22:58
    year in case there's any other updates that
  • 02:23:01
    that folks have or any progression on on
  • 02:23:05
    those rules. Any other ideas or input on
  • 02:23:09
    the open action items list? Shams. Yeah. I
  • 02:23:17
    can't remember if this was on the open
  • 02:23:18
    action item list or not. But, you know,
  • 02:23:21
    I think several years ago, you know, I
  • 02:23:24
    brought up the issue of behind the meter
  • 02:23:27
    resources being able to provide ancillary services. So
  • 02:23:31
    now with, with the NPRR that allows CLRs
  • 02:23:35
    to do behind the generation meter, you know,
  • 02:23:40
    providing ancillary services, I think the same concept
  • 02:23:42
    can be that that size and PRR, the
  • 02:23:44
    same concept is, now applicable for the behind
  • 02:23:48
    the meter, resources. I was wondering if there's
  • 02:23:51
    any update from ERCOT on I know ERCOT
  • 02:23:54
    was working on that issue since we discussed
  • 02:23:56
    it a long time ago. And I was
  • 02:23:58
    wondering if we can get an update from
  • 02:24:00
    ERCOT on that behind the meter, resource providing
  • 02:24:04
    ancillary service concept. Dave, go ahead. Yeah. I
  • 02:24:17
    I guess, Sean, I don't have anything to
  • 02:24:19
    share with you all today. Unfortunately, Sai has
  • 02:24:21
    been one who's been thinking about that probably
  • 02:24:24
    the most in in recent months, and and
  • 02:24:25
    he's not available. So perhaps, Blake, what we
  • 02:24:28
    can do is, just have that as as
  • 02:24:31
    part of an update for next month. We
  • 02:24:33
    can kinda talk about anything that we can
  • 02:24:35
    can share. Does that work for the group?
  • 02:24:38
    That works for me, Dave. And and I
  • 02:24:40
    can flag that, as something we can, put
  • 02:24:44
    in the ERCOT reports and updates, for next
  • 02:24:48
    month. Does that work for you, Shams? Yes.
  • 02:24:51
    Thanks, David. That'd be great. Thanks. No problem.
  • 02:24:54
    Thank you. I'll pass it along the side.
  • 02:24:59
    Jim, did you have anything else you'd like
  • Item 19 - Adjourn - Blake Holt
    02:25:01
    to add here? Okay. Given that, I I
  • 02:25:04
    think we are good to adjourn for the
  • 02:25:05
    day. Thanks for your attendance and participation. Thank
  • 02:25:14
    you.
Wms-20250205-ballot-combined
Feb 04, 2025 - xls - 114 KB
Wms-20250205-ballot-nprr1202
Feb 04, 2025 - xls - 115.5 KB
Wms-20250205-ballot-nprr1264
Feb 04, 2025 - xls - 112 KB
02-agenda-wms-20250205v2
Jan 29, 2025 - doc - 152 KB
03-draft-minutes-wms-20250108
Jan 29, 2025 - zip - 110.7 KB
05-2025-wms-wg-leadership-nomineesv2
Jan 29, 2025 - pptx - 85.8 KB
06-2024-wms-goals-tac-approved-20240327
Jan 28, 2025 - docx - 29 KB
07-wms_settlement-stability-report_q4_2024
Jan 28, 2025 - pptx - 907.8 KB
07-2024-q4-unregistered-distributed-generation-(dg)-report---wms-update
Jan 28, 2025 - pptx - 207.2 KB
07-annual-update-crr-activitycalendar
Jan 28, 2025 - zip - 210.7 KB
12-cmwg-update-2025-2-wms
Jan 28, 2025 - pptx - 465.7 KB
14-240205-sawg-presentation-to-wms
Feb 02, 2025 - pptx - 12.5 MB
15-wmwg-update-to-wms-of-jan-30-meeting
Feb 02, 2025 - pptx - 620.5 KB
Meeting-materials-20250205
Feb 03, 2025 - zip - 21 MB
Revision-requests-wms-20250205
Feb 03, 2025 - zip - 6.5 MB
Validation for WMS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
Starts at 00:00:09
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:01:45
2 - Agenda Review - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:02:40
3 - Approval of WMS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:03:43
3.1 - December 4, 2024
Starts at 00:03:54
3.2 - January 8, 2024
Starts at 00:03:57
4 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:04:36
5 - 2025 WMS Working Group Leadership - Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:06:08
6 - 2025 WMS Goals - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:07:52
7 - ERCOT Operations and Market Items
Starts at 00:09:18
7.1 - 2024 Q4 Settlement Stability Report - Magie Shanks
Starts at 00:10:21
7.2 - 2024 Q4 Unregistered Distribution Generation DG Report - Fred Khodabakhsh
Starts at 00:16:05
7.3 - Annual Update to the Congestion Revenue Right - CRR - Activity Calendar - Vote - Samantha Findley
Starts at 00:18:15
8 - WMS Revision Requests - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:24:15
8.1 - VCMRR042, SO2 and NOx Emission Index Prices Used in Verifiable Cost Calculations
Starts at 00:24:30
9 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:31:31
9.1 - NPRR1263, Remove Accuracy Testing Requirements for CCVTs
Starts at 00:31:53
10 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to WMS - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 00:58:15
10.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions
Starts at 00:58:25
10.2 - NPRR1202, Refundable Deposits for Large Load Interconnection Studies
Starts at 00:58:35
10.3 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities
Starts at 00:59:16
11 - Revision Requests Tabled at WMS - Possible Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 01:02:52
12 - Congestion Management Working Group - CMWG - CMWG Leadership
Starts at 01:03:50
Break
Starts at 01:21:42
13 - Meter Working Group - MWG - MWG Leadership
Starts at 01:32:15
13.1 - SMOGRR028, Add Series Reactor Compensation Factors - MWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:32:21
14 - Supply Analysis Working Group - SAWG - SAWG Leadership
Starts at 01:41:02
15 - Wholesale Market Working Group - WMWG - WMWG Leadership
Starts at 01:56:08
15.2 - NPRR1256, Settlement of MRA of ESRs - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 02:02:47
9.2 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program
Starts at 02:05:21
15.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment - WMWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 02:06:55
17 - Demand Side Working Group - DSWG - DSWG Leadership
Starts at 02:10:35
16 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Blake Holt
Starts at 02:11:03
18 - Other Business - Blake Holt
Starts at 02:22:39
18.1 - Review Open Action Items
Starts at 02:22:43
19 - Adjourn - Blake Holt
Starts at 02:25:01

Help Desk