02/06/2025 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 47:59
Duration 3:12:07
Loaded: 25.01%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 2:24:08
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 ROS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
    00:00:03
    Good morning. This is Susie Clifton with ERCOT.
  • 00:00:06
    Before we start the ROS meeting this morning,
  • 00:00:10
    we're gonna go ahead and go through these
  • 00:00:11
    meeting room reminders most of you are familiar
  • 00:00:13
    with, and Erin has it in the chat.
  • 00:00:16
    But we are using the chat, to queue
  • 00:00:19
    for motions or discussions. Please wait for the
  • 00:00:22
    chair to recognize you before you begin speaking.
  • 00:00:25
    And then today, when we move to the
  • 00:00:27
    balloting process, if you are a seated representative,
  • 00:00:31
    as we are approaching your segment, please unmute
  • 00:00:33
    yourselves. And then after you have cast your
  • 00:00:36
    vote, please return to the mute status. That'll
  • 00:00:39
    help us be a little more efficient on
  • 00:00:41
    that balloting process. And then if the audio
  • 00:00:44
    or I'm sorry. If the Webex ends for
  • 00:00:46
    any reason, give us just a few minutes,
  • 00:00:48
    and we should be able to restart the
  • 00:00:50
    Webex. And if we're unable to use the
  • 00:00:53
    same meeting information, we will forward that out
  • 00:00:55
    to the ROS Listserv if necessary. And with
  • 00:00:59
    that, Katie, we are ready to get started
  • 00:01:01
    this morning when you're ready, and we do
  • Item 1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
    00:01:03
    have a quorum. Thanks, Susie. So maybe we
  • 00:01:07
    can just go ahead and pull up the
  • 00:01:10
    antitrust. And then while people are reading that,
  • 00:01:15
    we only have one alt rep today. So,
  • 00:01:19
    Ethar with Oncor has given us alt rep
  • 00:01:21
    to Martha Henson. Martha Henson is our newly
  • 00:01:25
    seated TAC vice chair. So welcome, Martha, this
  • 00:01:29
    morning. I think you've all had a chance
  • 00:01:32
    to read the antitrust with that. So we
  • 00:01:34
    can go back, and I wanna walk us
  • 00:01:36
    through the agenda so everyone knows what we're
  • Item 2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
    00:01:38
    in for today. We do have, the January
  • 00:01:44
    ROS meeting minutes. I'll give you an update
  • 00:01:47
    on TAC from last month. Working group leadership,
  • 00:01:51
    we're doing really well there. ROS goals, I'll
  • 00:01:55
    give you a preface on what's going on
  • 00:01:56
    on the tax side. And then we have
  • 00:01:59
    our two standing ERCOT reports. We have a
  • 00:02:03
    new, NPRR coming to us, probably looking to
  • 00:02:08
    refer that somewhere. I'll give you an update
  • 00:02:11
    on the tabled item, NPRR1229, and then, the
  • 00:02:18
    the other ROS tabled items, along with, an
  • 00:02:22
    update on December. And then we'll move into
  • 00:02:25
    our working group updates. So we'll start with
  • 00:02:28
    OWG, NDSWG, PLWG. I'll give you a heads
  • 00:02:34
    up. I've I've got a layout for discussion
  • 00:02:37
    on PGRR115, so I'll be kind
  • 00:02:40
    of TAC teaming that with Dylan. And then
  • 00:02:43
    under the inverter based resources working group, IBRWG,
  • 00:02:49
    Fred, Hung has a presentation for us, and
  • 00:02:52
    then I wanna pose some questions to ROS
  • 00:02:55
    to try to get this discussion on the,
  • 00:02:58
    right path. Then we'll take the combo ballot,
  • 00:03:01
    finish up with PDCWG, SSWG, OTWG, and then
  • 00:03:06
    go into other business, quick update on some
  • 00:03:10
    open action items that we, were approved to
  • 00:03:13
    remove from our list after the TAC meeting.
  • 00:03:16
    So, update on that and, then then we'll
  • 00:03:20
    see if there's anything else for the good
  • 00:03:21
    of the group. So does that sound fair
  • Item 3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    00:03:23
    to everyone? Okay. Seeing no, comments. Let's see.
  • 00:03:31
    Susie, we did have one change on the
  • 00:03:34
    January 9 meeting minutes. Do you wanna lay
  • 00:03:36
    that out for us? Yes. Erin, if you
  • 00:03:40
    can go ahead and pull up the meeting
  • Item 3.1 - January 9, 2025 - Katie Rich
    00:03:42
    minutes. In the original draft that I sent
  • 00:03:45
    out, I did have an error that I
  • 00:03:47
    made in the, leadership for ROS. So apologies
  • 00:03:51
    to Nabaraj and Sandeep, but I did
  • 00:03:53
    go ahead and correct those minutes. And you'll
  • 00:03:56
    see now under the election of the ROS
  • 00:03:59
    vice chair, I do have that correct. And,
  • 00:04:03
    Sandeep is our vice chair. So, again, apologies
  • 00:04:06
    for that. And I did post, the revised
  • 00:04:09
    version to the website. And so this version
  • 00:04:13
    too, which will be what we're going to
  • 00:04:16
    vote on on the minutes, and that will
  • 00:04:18
    be to, approve as presented or submitted since
  • 00:04:22
    this is the revised version was posted. Any
  • 00:04:25
    questions with that? Okay. Thank you, Katie. Thank
  • 00:04:32
    you, Susie. Okay. So with that, I'm not
  • 00:04:35
    seeing any questions. This is normally something that
  • 00:04:39
    makes our first item on our combo ballot.
  • 00:04:44
    If if no one is opposed to that,
  • 00:04:46
    I think, Erin, we can put that on
  • 00:04:48
    there. Alright. Okay. Alright. From there, let me,
  • Item 4 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update Katie Rich
    00:04:54
    move into my, TAC update. TAC leadership did
  • 00:05:00
    approve, the all of the subcommittee leadership, so
  • 00:05:05
    that includes myself and and Sandeep. And then
  • 00:05:10
    there was a discussion of their goals. Martha
  • 00:05:13
    is working on, bringing a more streamlined list
  • 00:05:17
    to TAC for further discussion. She's also reached
  • 00:05:20
    out to subcommittee leadership and let us know
  • 00:05:23
    that she's gonna give us a preview, of
  • 00:05:26
    those and, you know, we can talk about
  • 00:05:29
    how that might feed into what we do
  • 00:05:31
    with the ROS goals. We can look at
  • 00:05:35
    ours today if you'd like, but I I
  • 00:05:37
    think we should hold off taking any vote
  • 00:05:39
    until we see what Martha has for us.
  • 00:05:43
    And then, of course, TAC approved NPRR1257 and the associated NOGRR that came
  • 00:05:48
    from us, NOGRR2171. So this was
  • 00:05:51
    limiting the amount of an RRS resource that
  • 00:05:53
    can provide primary frequency response that limits down
  • 00:05:56
    to, a single resource can provide a 57
  • 00:05:59
    megawatts that also necessitated the change to the,
  • 00:06:03
    ancillary service methodology, which was approved. So those
  • 00:06:07
    were the main highlights that that impacted us
  • 00:06:11
    from TAC. And then, Susie, why don't you
  • 00:06:14
    pull up the slide for the ROS working
  • Item 5 - 2025 ROS Working Group Leadership - Vote - Katie Rich
    00:06:18
    group leadership? Alright. So, great work to everybody
  • 00:06:21
    with getting their vice chair and chair, you
  • 00:06:34
    know, suggestions in, and and here they are
  • 00:06:38
    on the screen. It looks like, if we
  • 00:06:41
    were gonna lobby for support, we could use
  • 00:06:43
    someone for for vice chair for PDCWG. I'm
  • 00:06:46
    sure Chad would appreciate having the help on
  • 00:06:49
    that. So if you're interested in that, please
  • 00:06:51
    reach out to Chad or you can reach
  • 00:06:53
    out to to me or Sandeep, and we'll
  • 00:06:55
    put you in touch. And then just while
  • 00:06:57
    we have this up on the screen, you
  • 00:07:00
    know, I wanna welcome, all the folks that
  • 00:07:02
    are coming back and and especially all of
  • 00:07:04
    the ones that are newly, seated in these
  • 00:07:07
    leadership positions. I think this is a good
  • 00:07:10
    time to kind of talk about a couple
  • 00:07:12
    of things that we'd like to see happen
  • 00:07:13
    at ROS. So, Susie always does a preplanning
  • 00:07:16
    call, with the agenda, and then she will
  • 00:07:20
    post that a week ahead of time. And
  • 00:07:24
    that is usually when she likes to see,
  • 00:07:26
    the working group materials. So any presentation materials
  • 00:07:29
    that you have, you know, those should come
  • 00:07:33
    in that Thursday prior to the meeting. So
  • 00:07:36
    those get posted, and we all have time
  • 00:07:38
    to review them. So just wanted to make
  • 00:07:40
    that point. And then also just making sure
  • 00:07:43
    that someone from your, you know, working group
  • 00:07:47
    leadership is on to hear about referrals. So
  • 00:07:51
    once something gets referred to your group, it's
  • 00:07:55
    best to get that on the next possible
  • 00:07:58
    meeting agenda, so we can get moving on
  • 00:08:01
    any of those revision requests. And then you
  • 00:08:04
    may see some reminders from me if, things
  • 00:08:07
    are not posted on time or if we're
  • 00:08:10
    are not posted on time or if we're
  • 00:08:12
    looking for something for you. So, just be
  • 00:08:16
    on the lookout for that. And, thanks again
  • 00:08:19
    for for your interest, and and we look
  • 00:08:20
    forward to having a good 2025. And with
  • 00:08:30
    that, I think it takes us on to
  • 00:08:32
    our ROS schools. Hi, Katie. This is Erin,
  • 00:08:45
    with ERCOT Market Rules. Yes, ma'am. Did we
  • 00:08:48
    wanna go ahead and add the motion to
  • 00:08:50
    approve the lead working group leadership to the
  • 00:08:54
    combo ballot? Oh, thank you. Thank you, Erin.
  • 00:08:58
    Yes. I would like to do that. Thank
  • 00:09:00
    you. Thank you for reminding me. You're welcome.
  • 00:09:26
    Alright. So thanks, Darren, for pulling these up.
  • Item 6 - 2025 ROS Goals - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    00:09:29
    So, you know, as I mentioned, you know,
  • 00:09:33
    TAC has a goal of of streamlining. That
  • 00:09:36
    may mean, you know, some of these could
  • 00:09:38
    be consolidated. Some of these could be worded
  • 00:09:42
    in such a way that we don't have
  • 00:09:44
    to, you know, reevaluate, you know, every year.
  • 00:09:48
    So, you know, I don't I don't know.
  • 00:09:51
    I wanna open the floor up for folks
  • 00:09:53
    if they have any comments. You know, we
  • 00:09:55
    received comments in the past. If not, we
  • 00:09:59
    can sort of table this pending, any action
  • 00:10:02
    from from TAC and seeing how we might
  • 00:10:05
    harmonize what we have with what, they come
  • 00:10:08
    up with ultimately. I see the queue is
  • 00:10:12
    fear now, so, I'm fine with taking it
  • 00:10:15
    that that way. I should be hearing from
  • 00:10:18
    Martha next week. So definitely in time for
  • 00:10:21
    our next meeting, I should have some feedback
  • 00:10:23
    for you. Sorry. This is so is
  • 00:10:32
    eight the final does it go below eight
  • 00:10:37
    on the goals? Is eight the last one?
  • 00:10:39
    It keeps going. Oh. So she can scroll
  • 00:10:41
    down. Okay. Sandeep, you had a question? Yeah.
  • 00:11:16
    This is Sandeep Borkar. Can you all hear
  • 00:11:18
    me? We can. Go ahead. Yeah. I don't
  • 00:11:24
    know if we've discussed this in the past,
  • 00:11:26
    but the goal number seven, evaluate and determine
  • 00:11:30
    GMD requirements and address needed changes in protocols
  • 00:11:34
    and guides. Would we consider that goal has
  • 00:11:38
    been met? I mean, I think not TPL,
  • 00:11:44
    seven has been established, and we have, established
  • 00:11:49
    planning guide direction on that. I'm not sure
  • 00:11:53
    if that goal is still active and valid.
  • 00:12:03
    So something to think about. I'm not saying
  • 00:12:06
    we need to take action right away. But
  • 00:12:10
    Yeah. No. I'll take that. We'll take that
  • 00:12:11
    back. I think I think that's a very
  • 00:12:13
    good point if it's something that if it's
  • 00:12:14
    a goal that we've achieved. I I will
  • 00:12:17
    take that back. Cyrus, did you have a
  • 00:12:20
    question as well? Yeah. Just a a question
  • 00:12:24
    or a comment. Do we think number six
  • 00:12:27
    is written in a way with load resources
  • 00:12:31
    also include it would also include large load
  • 00:12:34
    resources, right, or controllable load. So it it
  • 00:12:37
    it's wide enough because, you know, obviously, we
  • 00:12:39
    have this new issue with a lot of
  • 00:12:41
    really, really large loads coming under under our
  • 00:12:44
    system that these goals are written in such
  • 00:12:47
    a way that we're allowed to, you know,
  • 00:12:49
    consider what the, reliability impacts of those are.
  • 00:12:53
    Correct? Do people feel like that's a good
  • 00:12:56
    word? And if you notice, like, this is
  • 00:12:57
    a capitalized term. So when it's talking about
  • 00:13:00
    load resources, that would include CLRs and NCLRs.
  • 00:13:04
    Okay. Great. Caitlin. Katie, can you hear me?
  • 00:13:18
    We can. Go ahead. Okay. I I said
  • 00:13:22
    this at the board as well, and I
  • 00:13:24
    think it was in line with our discussions
  • 00:13:26
    at TAC. I think what we are going
  • 00:13:29
    to do with the the TAC goals is,
  • 00:13:32
    more something that is standing that that can
  • 00:13:35
    stay for probably multiple years, kind of like
  • 00:13:38
    what we hold ourselves to as a group.
  • 00:13:41
    And then the action items will be these
  • 00:13:43
    things where we sort of tick off the
  • 00:13:45
    the box. Yes. We're we're definitely gonna, you
  • 00:13:49
    know, go over that with with you, Katie.
  • 00:13:51
    And then, you know, even whether we do
  • 00:13:52
    that as TAC will be up to to
  • 00:13:54
    the whole group TAC. And and what you
  • 00:13:56
    guys do will be up to you, but
  • 00:13:59
    I think that's probably where we're headed as
  • 00:14:01
    TAC is having the goals be, you know,
  • 00:14:05
    something that can stay year to year that
  • 00:14:07
    is sort of what what does ROS hold
  • 00:14:09
    itself to. And then the action items are
  • 00:14:12
    more the, like, did we finish this? Is
  • 00:14:14
    this something that is, you know, proactive or
  • 00:14:17
    responsive that that we wanna get done year
  • 00:14:19
    to year and and kind of check the
  • 00:14:21
    box? So that's the way I think we're
  • 00:14:23
    thinking about ERCOT goals. I I don't know
  • 00:14:25
    if that helps you here. I think as
  • 00:14:28
    the the subcommittees get a little bit more
  • 00:14:30
    detailed, maybe that's harder to separate. But it
  • 00:14:32
    seems to me that this list is a
  • 00:14:34
    is maybe a lot more kind of action
  • 00:14:36
    items. No. I think that's I think that's
  • 00:14:39
    a great clarification, Caitlin, and and we can,
  • 00:14:42
    look at it from that perspective as well.
  • 00:14:44
    I'm I think Sandeep and I might have
  • 00:14:46
    some some homework after we meet with, with
  • 00:14:49
    Martha Martha and you, to see what we
  • 00:14:53
    can do on that. But, yeah, up to
  • 00:14:55
    this point, I think, we've been trying to,
  • 00:14:57
    you know, knock out some of those action
  • 00:14:59
    items. So if there are others to add,
  • 00:15:02
    we can certainly consider that. Yep. And, again,
  • 00:15:06
    you know, I think it's it's completely up
  • 00:15:08
    to the groups. We don't wanna predetermine, even
  • 00:15:11
    even what what TAC decides to do or
  • 00:15:13
    what the other groups decide to do, but
  • 00:15:15
    I I think that's something for consideration that
  • 00:15:18
    I've been thinking about because we do have
  • 00:15:21
    both documents. We have goals and action items.
  • 00:15:24
    And so I've really been thinking about, you
  • 00:15:26
    know, the purpose of each and and how
  • 00:15:28
    we hold ourselves accountable to to both. Yeah.
  • 00:15:44
    And I I will say, you know, as
  • 00:15:47
    as ROS and and with working group leadership's
  • 00:15:51
    help, we've we've really been trying to, review,
  • 00:15:55
    throughout the year and and make sure that,
  • 00:15:58
    you know, if an action item is complete,
  • 00:16:01
    we're reporting it back to TAC. So, again,
  • 00:16:05
    appreciate your feedback. Clayton, you had a question?
  • 00:16:10
    Yeah. This is Clayton. Can you hear me?
  • 00:16:12
    I can. Well, that's a follow-up to Cyrus's
  • 00:16:16
    question. I think, it seems like bullet six
  • 00:16:22
    really doesn't address just large loads, and it
  • 00:16:26
    seems like there are probably gonna be things
  • 00:16:29
    coming out of either the PUC or the
  • 00:16:32
    legislator on addressing loads that are not load
  • 00:16:38
    resources. So I'm wondering if we need to
  • 00:16:42
    add that to bullet six, or do you
  • 00:16:43
    feel it's captured somewhere else? I think we
  • 00:16:54
    can, we can take that back. I'll I'll
  • 00:16:56
    take a look at it. And then in
  • 00:16:59
    light of what Caitlin said, we can think
  • 00:17:01
    about whether there should be, some sort of
  • 00:17:04
    action item. I mean, we've already done a
  • 00:17:06
    lot of work on it. You know, we've
  • 00:17:08
    got PGRR115 on the, agenda today, and 12:34
  • 00:17:14
    coming up soon. So, I mean, there's certainly
  • 00:17:16
    been a lot of, revision request activity. So
  • 00:17:19
    we can we can think about that, but
  • 00:17:21
    thanks for thanks for pointing that out. Okay.
  • 00:17:27
    I think that takes us to the end
  • 00:17:28
    of the queue. So, more discussion to come
  • 00:17:33
    on this one. Thank you guys for your
  • 00:17:35
    feedback today. And with that, Erin, I think
  • 00:17:42
    we can move on to the ERCOT reports.
  • 00:17:46
    Alex, are you on for the operations report?
  • Item 7 - ERCOT Reports
    00:17:53
    Good morning, ROS. This is Alex from ERCOT.
  • 00:17:55
    Can you hear me okay? We can. Go
  • Item 7.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
    00:17:58
    ahead. Thank you. So for the month of
  • 00:18:04
    December, the unofficial Earth optic demand was 60
  • 00:18:08
    gigawatt 235 megawatt, which happened on December 11
  • 00:18:13
    ending '8. This was 3,259 megawatt higher
  • 00:18:18
    than the PGRR123 December peak demand.
  • 00:18:23
    ERCOT also had one frequency event during the
  • 00:18:26
    month of December, and it was due to
  • 00:18:28
    a unit trip where the frequency dropped to
  • 00:18:30
    59.93 hertz, but it was recovered within four
  • 00:18:34
    minutes. However, there was no ECRS or RRS
  • 00:18:39
    deployed for the month of December. ERCOT also
  • 00:18:43
    had one DC type curtailment on Laredo DC
  • 00:18:47
    type on December 23, which was due to
  • 00:18:50
    a forced outage around the area. ERCOT had
  • 00:18:54
    30 ROC commitment, mostly due to South mostly
  • 00:18:59
    to handle South Texas and Valley, Iowa. ERCOT
  • 00:19:04
    had no OCN issues, but ERCOT issued one
  • 00:19:08
    advisory for the dynamic stability assessment is going
  • 00:19:13
    down in real time. It was actually a
  • 00:19:15
    t stat that was unavailable for about thirty
  • 00:19:18
    minutes. T stat was still functional. And the
  • 00:19:22
    table below shows the GTC that occurred on
  • 00:19:26
    December. Cananda and Hamilton had the high congestion,
  • 00:19:30
    which occurred at 23 days. Nelson Sharp,
  • 00:19:33
    West Texas, the Potter had sixteen days, and
  • 00:19:36
    there are several that were binding congested in
  • 00:19:40
    North Attenborough Valley area as well as the
  • 00:19:43
    South Texas, both import and export. With that,
  • 00:19:46
    I'll see if there's any questions. Thanks, Alex.
  • 00:19:54
    We have a question from Cyrus Reid. Yeah.
  • 00:19:57
    I don't, I'm assuming this would be at
  • 00:19:59
    the next meeting, but have you guys done
  • 00:20:01
    an analysis yet of, winter storm and was
  • 00:20:08
    it Enzo? Whatever the one was that was
  • 00:20:10
    really cold where they canceled school for a
  • 00:20:13
    day. And would or would that be that
  • 00:20:16
    would be next month's report, basically. We do
  • 00:20:22
    have some analysis on that, and we can
  • 00:20:25
    have internal discussion that we can bring see
  • 00:20:28
    what we can bring back next month if
  • 00:20:30
    that's Yeah. That'd be great. Interested. To know,
  • 00:20:32
    you know, how does it compare. If if
  • 00:20:35
    it had lasted more than a day, would
  • 00:20:37
    we have been alright? That kind of stuff.
  • 00:20:39
    Just basic information. Sure. We'll take that and
  • 00:20:44
    bring that next month. Randy, did you wanna
  • 00:20:47
    weigh in on that? Yeah. So, I'm just
  • 00:20:52
    gonna refer you to so Dan did present
  • 00:20:55
    at r and m and board on that,
  • 00:20:58
    and there are some slides that compare winter
  • 00:21:02
    storm Enzo and Oncor to Heather and ERCOT.
  • 00:21:05
    So that that might help, answer some of
  • 00:21:08
    those questions. But Was that the board meeting
  • 00:21:10
    earlier this week? Yes. So r and m
  • 00:21:13
    probably has the more extensive, slides on on
  • 00:21:19
    that. I think there may have been one
  • 00:21:21
    slide at the board, but, maybe check r
  • 00:21:24
    and m slides that they've presented to. Okay.
  • 00:21:28
    So Yeah. I'm not looking for additional work
  • 00:21:31
    for you guys. I just wanna if it's
  • 00:21:33
    already been done, that's great. Okay. Yeah. Maybe
  • 00:21:36
    maybe look at those, and then if if
  • 00:21:38
    you need some additional information Oncor you reach
  • 00:21:40
    out to us and maybe we can bring
  • 00:21:42
    something back next month. Appreciate it. Thanks. Mhmm.
  • 00:21:45
    Yeah. And then, Nava also mentioned that, in
  • 00:21:49
    the CEO update, there was some discussion as
  • 00:21:52
    well. So you might take a look at
  • 00:21:53
    his slides. So there was r and c
  • 00:21:55
    where you had Dan's presentation and then the
  • 00:21:57
    actual board meeting had the CEO update. So
  • 00:22:00
    I'd look at both of those. Okay. Not
  • 00:22:11
    seeing anything else in the queue, so I
  • 00:22:13
    think we can take it over to the
  • 00:22:15
    system planning report. Ping, are you on for
  • Item 7.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan
    00:22:17
    us? Yes. Thanks, Katie. Good morning, everyone. This
  • 00:22:22
    is Ping with ERCOT transmission planning. For this
  • 00:22:25
    month's system planning report, I do want to
  • 00:22:28
    bring a quick update. So ERCOT posted a
  • 00:22:32
    document, towards the end of last month to
  • 00:22:36
    compare the, 345-kV plan and
  • 00:22:40
    the the 765-kV plan that
  • 00:22:43
    we studied in the regional transmission plan last
  • 00:22:46
    year, based on the cost and the different
  • 00:22:49
    benefits. And also in that comparison document, some
  • 00:22:54
    other, studies like stability related comparisons were also
  • 00:22:58
    provided. The document is posted on the ERCOT,
  • 00:23:03
    website on the planning page. So just want
  • 00:23:06
    to give a heads up on that. So,
  • 00:23:09
    that's all I have, and, I'll be glad
  • 00:23:12
    to take any questions. Thanks, Ping. It looks
  • 00:23:26
    like the queue is clear. Thanks for your
  • Item 8 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Katie Rich
    00:23:29
    update. Thanks, Katie. Thanks, everyone. Okay. So with
  • 00:23:40
    that, that moves us down into item number
  • Item 8.1 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator
    00:23:44
    eight. So we have NPRR1265
  • 00:23:48
    unregistered distributed generator, for us. And then wondering
  • 00:23:54
    if Phil Blevins is on or someone from
  • 00:23:56
    ERCOT that can lay this out for us.
  • 00:24:29
    Alright. Can y'all hear me now? Sorry. I
  • 00:24:31
    was having some difficulty finding where I could
  • 00:24:33
    mute unmute. Yeah. Can y'all hear me? We
  • 00:24:37
    can. Go ahead, Bill. Yeah. Hopefully, this will
  • 00:24:40
    be brief. So, we proposed this, NPRR1265. It's kind of ongoing work related
  • 00:24:47
    to discussions we've had in the past with,
  • 00:24:50
    DG. I think this is actually in response
  • 00:24:53
    more to, some legislation that came out, house
  • 00:24:57
    bill thirty three ninety, which allows ERCOT to
  • 00:25:00
    get more visibility into the smaller amount of
  • 00:25:03
    DG that we have. We have some plans
  • 00:25:06
    to probably use that more in some of
  • 00:25:09
    our planning studies and cases, and we've got
  • 00:25:12
    a process to try to collect this information
  • 00:25:14
    that we wanna talk through with the NDSWG.
  • 00:25:18
    So I think, really, what we'd like to
  • 00:25:22
    see is to have this, probably tabled at
  • 00:25:23
    ROS and remanded over to the NDSWG, because
  • 00:25:26
    they'll be the folks that are really helpful
  • 00:25:31
    in for us getting the information and putting
  • 00:25:33
    it back into our system so that, we
  • 00:25:35
    could use it over in the planning world.
  • 00:25:37
    So we've got some examples of, you know,
  • 00:25:39
    forms and things that we're gonna collect and,
  • 00:25:42
    walk through the process with those folks. So
  • 00:25:45
    that's kinda what we would like to see
  • 00:25:47
    happen today with this one, but the background
  • 00:25:48
    is is is is kind of ongoing distributed
  • 00:25:51
    generation related, and it is gonna help us
  • 00:25:56
    understand a little bit more how the distributed
  • 00:26:00
    generation is impacting, you know, the overall network.
  • 00:26:03
    Thanks, Phil. And you, you know, ultimately answered
  • 00:26:12
    my my planning question of where would we
  • 00:26:15
    send this to. Certainly, that I I I
  • 00:26:18
    certainly don't have a problem with sending it
  • 00:26:22
    over to, NDSWG for review. I don't see
  • 00:26:25
    anyone else in the queue. So anyone opposed
  • 00:26:29
    to adding this to the combo ballot and
  • 00:26:35
    sending it over to NDSWG? Okay. Martha agrees.
  • 00:26:37
    Thank you, Martha. And then, can leadership from
  • 00:26:40
    NDSWG just just confirm that you, heard the
  • 00:26:44
    referral? Yeah. No, Katie. Just to help, here,
  • 00:26:48
    I will have, our manager over the modeling
  • 00:27:05
    I will have, our manager over the modeling
  • 00:27:07
    group, get with, the the chair as well
  • 00:27:10
    and make sure that we communicate. We've already
  • 00:27:13
    got the presentations and things ready to go.
  • 00:27:16
    So I think, we've probably been talking to
  • 00:27:18
    them in the past too. So they probably
  • 00:27:19
    know this is coming. Okay. I appreciate that,
  • 00:27:22
    Bill. Just wanna make sure we can get
  • 00:27:24
    that on the next possible meeting. And then
  • 00:27:28
    with that, Aaron, can we, can we go
  • 00:27:29
    ahead and add this to the combo ballot?
  • 00:27:36
    Sorry. This is Eduardo. Can you guys hear
  • 00:27:38
    me? Yes. We can now. Yep. Okay. Yeah.
  • 00:27:45
    Yes. Yeah. No. We have no problems. Yeah.
  • 00:27:47
    We we can take that Okay. Into our
  • 00:27:49
    order. Okay. Alright. We got that up there
  • 00:28:08
    with the item on the combo ballot. I
  • 00:28:11
    think we're good to go on this one.
  • Item 9 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    00:28:15
    I will take the next one, under item
  • Item 9.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
    00:28:19
    nine. So NPRR1229, the real
  • 00:28:23
    time constraint management plan, energy payment that was
  • 00:28:26
    filed by, STEC a while ago. It has
  • 00:28:30
    been tabled here. I can tell you guys
  • 00:28:34
    that I have been, listening to all of
  • 00:28:37
    the WMWG discussions on the WMS side. At
  • 00:28:43
    this point, it looks like, you know, we'll
  • 00:28:45
    have one more discussion at WMWG, and then
  • 00:28:47
    it will come back to WMS. But I
  • 00:28:49
    can confirm with you that the the outstanding
  • 00:28:53
    issues are financial in nature. I I still
  • 00:28:57
    do not see anything lingering that would require
  • 00:29:00
    ROS review. So I know Ethar, you know,
  • 00:29:04
    asked a couple of months ago if if
  • 00:29:06
    we could go ahead and and close this
  • 00:29:08
    out, and I wanted to wait until the
  • 00:29:11
    WMWG discussion was further along just to confirm.
  • 00:29:14
    And I I feel like we're at a
  • 00:29:16
    point, where we could report back to, PRS
  • 00:29:23
    that, you know, we're we're neutral on this.
  • 00:29:26
    This, you know, isn't an issue that ROS
  • 00:29:30
    needs to take action on. Alex, did you
  • 00:29:36
    have a comment about that? That by adding
  • 00:29:42
    my I can't hear you very well. You
  • 00:29:45
    sound, a bit faint. Okay. I'm sorry. I'll
  • 00:29:50
    I'll try later. Just can't remember this one.
  • 00:30:14
    Okay. Alex is saying she's switching audio. I
  • 00:30:18
    don't see anybody else in the queue, though.
  • 00:30:21
    Alex, did you wanna type your comment into
  • 00:30:23
    the chat box? Is it even better now?
  • 00:30:31
    It's a little echoey, but I might be
  • 00:30:32
    able to make it out now. Just that
  • 00:30:42
    there's the possibility of adding the financial penalty
  • 00:30:50
    to to consumers for these for potential outcomes
  • 00:30:57
    of a variety of the action could change
  • 00:31:01
    the the choices that are made in the
  • 00:31:04
    in the front and any of the change.
  • 00:31:07
    Reliability on a slightly. So do you feel
  • 00:31:18
    like that has any language impacts that would
  • 00:31:23
    involve ROS? No. But I don't think there's
  • 00:31:27
    anything to to do about that. I just
  • 00:31:30
    want Okay. Because it's a different an impact.
  • 00:31:34
    Yeah. If it's really specific to avoid a
  • 00:31:36
    financial burden. Right. Okay. Curtis, so you're asking
  • 00:31:51
    if I can reword what Alex's comment was.
  • 00:31:56
    She was basically saying that if there's a
  • 00:31:59
    financial penalty of, you know, for some reliability
  • 00:32:05
    action, then that could change the choices that
  • 00:32:09
    were made. But she's also confirming that that
  • 00:32:12
    doesn't require, you know, any impact to the
  • 00:32:17
    language. So it still doesn't sound like there's
  • 00:32:20
    anything for ROS to take action on. I
  • 00:32:25
    think she's just making us aware of that
  • 00:32:28
    potential. Okay. So, with that said, Susie, can
  • 00:32:45
    you help me out here? Because this came
  • 00:32:47
    up at WMS yesterday for a couple of
  • 00:32:51
    revision requests there. How how did you plan
  • 00:32:54
    that we should, proceed? Okay. So, Erin, we've
  • 00:32:57
    got some exact wording here, and then we
  • 00:33:03
    would have no recommendation, and then we would
  • 00:33:06
    have, comments that go back to PRS stating
  • 00:33:12
    this. Is that correct? Yes. That is correct,
  • 00:33:19
    Katie. That was very similar to exactly what
  • 00:33:21
    we did yesterday at WMS. Okay. I just
  • 00:33:25
    wanted to be, transparent with all the ROS
  • 00:33:28
    members on how we would proceed. And thanks
  • 00:33:31
    for your help on this, Susie. Yes. We
  • 00:33:33
    were just trying to provide transparency of that.
  • 00:33:37
    And the way to do that is through
  • 00:33:39
    the comment process. And that way anybody could
  • 00:33:42
    follow what is happening with the revision request
  • 00:33:46
    and, know that we are done with it.
  • 00:33:49
    Okay. Thanks, Susie. Chase, you had a question?
  • 00:33:57
    Thank you, Katie. This is Chase with Sun
  • 00:33:59
    and Power. Can you can we clarify are
  • 00:34:03
    we saying that we think this is an
  • 00:34:06
    issue that is not relevant for ROS input
  • 00:34:11
    and decision, and we're done with reviewing. And,
  • 00:34:17
    you know, we're we there will be no
  • 00:34:19
    future expected action on NPRR1229, or we don't
  • 00:34:22
    have a recommendation at this time, but we
  • 00:34:24
    will come back at a future time with
  • 00:34:26
    a recommend some sort of other recommended action.
  • 00:34:28
    I'm a little bit confused. No. We're trying
  • 00:34:31
    to close it out, at this point, Chase.
  • 00:34:34
    So I'm I'm saying that, again, based on
  • 00:34:38
    me following discussion and, you know, others can
  • 00:34:41
    chime in. I'm sure others have been at
  • 00:34:43
    the WWG meetings. What I'm saying is what's
  • 00:34:46
    pending before them are basically two financial decisions.
  • 00:34:52
    The threshold for, this sort of equipment payment
  • 00:34:58
    if if there's some damaged equipment and then
  • 00:35:01
    the threshold for the amount that they would
  • 00:35:04
    get paid in a make whole payment. So
  • 00:35:07
    to me, neither one of those has implications
  • 00:35:10
    for ROS. So I'm I'm saying that I
  • 00:35:14
    feel like ROS can sort of wrap this
  • 00:35:17
    up. It's been on this table list for
  • 00:35:18
    a while. So I feel like we can
  • 00:35:21
    wrap it up and, just go back and
  • 00:35:23
    basically say, you know, we're we're not we're
  • 00:35:26
    not taking an opinion on on this. Does
  • 00:35:30
    that help? That's very helpful. Thank you. I
  • 00:35:36
    I guess I was slightly complete confused by
  • 00:35:38
    has a recommendation at this time. I've potentially
  • 00:35:42
    inferred that we may make a recommendation at
  • 00:35:45
    a future time. I'm also seeing that we've
  • 00:35:48
    concluded discussion and I think that so I
  • 00:35:52
    I agree with the approach. I'm just just
  • 00:35:54
    wanted to make sure the language is clear.
  • 00:36:01
    Yeah. Yeah. We're clear on the reasoning and
  • 00:36:03
    the decision here today. Yeah. Thanks. Very good
  • 00:36:06
    point. Susie, is this the exact wording that
  • 00:36:09
    they used yesterday at double WMS or can
  • 00:36:11
    we just say has no recommendation? Hi, Katie.
  • 00:36:17
    This is Erin. I thought Margolis Go ahead,
  • 00:36:22
    Erin. I was going to bring you in.
  • 00:36:23
    Yes. Hi, Katie. This is the, the exact
  • 00:36:28
    language that was used at WMS yesterday with
  • 00:36:34
    the exception of, you know, pointing to ROS
  • 00:36:37
    as opposed to WMS. Alright. I see Corey.
  • 00:36:43
    Corey, you wanna weigh in? Oh, always. And,
  • 00:36:47
    you know, every every subcommittee is unique and
  • 00:36:50
    every NPRR is unique, so you guys don't
  • 00:36:52
    have to mirror the exact language. So so,
  • 00:36:56
    yes, there are times when the the response
  • 00:36:58
    would be, this has nothing to do with
  • 00:37:00
    us. If if y'all wanted to, you could
  • 00:37:01
    you could say I think you summed it
  • 00:37:03
    up beautifully, Katie, to say, advise PRS, ROS
  • 00:37:06
    has concluded discussion of NPRR1229, and, you know,
  • 00:37:11
    feels the outstanding issues are financial and not,
  • 00:37:13
    you know, related to reliability or something like
  • 00:37:15
    that. Something to say exactly that. So it's
  • 00:37:17
    not that we're still looking at it. It's
  • 00:37:18
    not that we have no recommendation. It's this
  • 00:37:21
    is a financial thing. Don't send it to
  • 00:37:22
    ROS. That kind of thing. You guys you
  • 00:37:24
    guys are free to work this as much
  • 00:37:26
    as you want. Obviously, you don't wanna type
  • 00:37:27
    out, you know, a a short novel, but
  • 00:37:29
    you're you everything you guys are putting here,
  • 00:37:31
    like, 1265, that motion is going
  • 00:37:34
    to become a set of comments that will
  • 00:37:36
    go to PRS and advise them of what
  • 00:37:38
    you wanna do to with for 1265. So
  • 00:37:41
    we're doing the exact same thing here with
  • 00:37:42
    NPRR1229. So, so you you don't have to
  • 00:37:45
    be boxed in by static, you know, language.
  • 00:37:47
    You can say as much or as little
  • 00:37:49
    about why ROS doesn't want to, you know,
  • 00:37:52
    officially opine on NPRR1229. And so I think
  • 00:37:55
    you you nailed it with a couple of
  • 00:37:56
    words, and I'm trying to put them back
  • 00:37:58
    in your mouth of that that these are
  • 00:38:00
    the the the the questions on NPRR1229 are
  • 00:38:02
    financial in nature and not, you know, something
  • 00:38:06
    that ROS needs to weigh in on or
  • 00:38:07
    so. Whatever you guys would wanna say. But,
  • 00:38:09
    no, you don't you guys there there's no
  • 00:38:10
    right or wrong way to say it. You're
  • 00:38:11
    just passing the baton back to PRS to
  • 00:38:14
    say, hey, PRS. On your agenda and on
  • 00:38:17
    your meeting, you think you're waiting on ROS
  • 00:38:19
    to give me feedback. We are now giving
  • 00:38:21
    you the feedback of stop waiting on ROS.
  • 00:38:23
    You guys can weigh out these issues with
  • 00:38:25
    WMS or other groups, but just, you know,
  • 00:38:27
    we're done. So power for much or as
  • 00:38:29
    little as you guys wanna say about that,
  • 00:38:31
    we'll put it in the set of comments
  • 00:38:32
    and send it off to PRS. So you
  • 00:38:34
    got you got leniency. You got you got
  • 00:38:37
    wiggle room to say whatever you'd like. Okay,
  • 00:38:39
    Corey. I think I wanna I think I
  • 00:38:41
    wanna come up with that language. I've had
  • 00:38:42
    a couple more people jump in the queue.
  • 00:38:44
    Alex, do you wanna come back, and add
  • 00:38:48
    another thought? And then I'll try to reword
  • 00:38:50
    this because I've I've already got some thoughts.
  • 00:38:53
    Okay. Thank you, Katie. Is this better? Can
  • 00:38:59
    you hear me better now? Yes. Go ahead.
  • 00:39:01
    Perfect now. Okay. Great. So I am I
  • 00:39:05
    do just I agree that the issues here
  • 00:39:08
    are primarily financial, primarily market issues, but I
  • 00:39:12
    I I do I am concerned about this.
  • 00:39:15
    I again, no recommendation. I could be okay
  • 00:39:19
    with that. It just it does concern me
  • 00:39:23
    that there's a slippery slope here that's starting
  • 00:39:26
    if if ERCOT is having to weigh an
  • 00:39:32
    unforeseen equipment damage to a generator for taking
  • 00:39:37
    a reliability action, a switching action, and now
  • 00:39:41
    they are you know and and the impact
  • 00:39:45
    to to all CMPs and and how ERCOT
  • 00:39:48
    staff needs to make those decisions going forward
  • 00:39:51
    and what what's the next step if if
  • 00:39:57
    consumers, you know, consumers these reliability actions are
  • 00:40:02
    to help prevent a load shed, and and
  • 00:40:06
    then there's a a financial payment that needs
  • 00:40:08
    to happen if something goes wrong, if a
  • 00:40:11
    if a line goes out of service during
  • 00:40:13
    that action and there's a contingency, it just
  • 00:40:17
    it does it does seem to be a
  • 00:40:20
    reliability component to me if it when this
  • 00:40:23
    happens and when these decisions are being made.
  • 00:40:25
    Or maybe there won't be any any repercussion.
  • 00:40:28
    ERCOT will make the same decisions they would
  • 00:40:30
    always make. Maybe Freddie could speak to that.
  • 00:40:32
    If ERCOT's not going to not make the
  • 00:40:36
    same choice, and then there will just be
  • 00:40:38
    this compensation, then then there's not a reliability
  • 00:40:41
    concern. Okay. Freddie, can you comment to that?
  • 00:40:51
    Sure. So I guess as part of our
  • 00:40:56
    normal process when we're developing a CMP or
  • 00:41:00
    or some other entity develops a CMP, we
  • 00:41:04
    always try to review with the impacted entities
  • 00:41:08
    whether there is some impact to their equipment
  • 00:41:10
    or not. And and if an entity tells
  • 00:41:13
    us, you know, no. This this would cause
  • 00:41:16
    some sort of damage to our equipment, then
  • 00:41:19
    we would take that into consideration whether we
  • 00:41:22
    had PGRR129 or not. I think
  • 00:41:26
    PGRR129 is really just saying if
  • 00:41:29
    if for whatever reason, we do not review
  • 00:41:32
    it with an impacted entity and we do
  • 00:41:35
    take the action that could potentially trip for
  • 00:41:38
    conscious damage to equipment, then there is some,
  • 00:41:43
    ability for that entity to recoup some of
  • 00:41:47
    of that financial loss, I guess, related to
  • 00:41:51
    that equipment damage. Okay. That's very helpful. That
  • 00:41:55
    that is very helpful. But you're you're already
  • 00:41:59
    for the ones that are known, you're already
  • 00:42:00
    reaching out about that. For the ones that
  • 00:42:02
    are unknown, you're not gonna change your decision
  • 00:42:04
    because it was unknown. Right. And, okay. That
  • 00:42:08
    helps me a lot. Thank you very much.
  • 00:42:11
    Okay, Freddie. So I'm gonna ask, your opinion.
  • 00:42:15
    I mean, is there any reason to leave
  • 00:42:18
    this here at ROS, or is my original
  • 00:42:22
    assumption correct that we can close this out?
  • 00:42:26
    Does someone do anything prematurely? I guess my
  • 00:42:31
    my personal opinion is I I don't think
  • 00:42:33
    this really changes how we develop or implement
  • 00:42:37
    a CMP. It it's really I think to
  • 00:42:42
    your point, it's adding additional repayment mechanism, if
  • 00:42:49
    you wanna call it that. I don't know.
  • 00:42:50
    Just another financial mechanism for for someone to
  • 00:42:53
    recoup their costs related to a CMP. So,
  • 00:42:58
    I don't think it changes how how we
  • 00:43:00
    would implement them or, use them. Okay. Cool.
  • 00:43:07
    Thank you. Thank you for that. Cyrus, last
  • 00:43:10
    comment, and then I'll try to reword this
  • 00:43:12
    so we can move on. Yeah. I was
  • 00:43:14
    just gonna suggest, I'm fine with the no
  • 00:43:17
    recommendation, but I was gonna suggest we have
  • 00:43:20
    a clause that says, you know and figure
  • 00:43:23
    out the right words. But to advise, Garrison
  • 00:43:25
    ROS has concluded discussion of NPRR1229,
  • 00:43:28
    determined that the remaining issues are financial
  • 00:43:33
    in nature, and has no recommendation this time.
  • 00:43:35
    Just to explain why, we are not making
  • 00:43:40
    a recommendation. Something like that. Some kind of
  • 00:43:44
    clause that, you know, says that it's not
  • 00:43:45
    a reliability issue, that it's a financial issue.
  • 00:43:49
    I really like that, Cyrus. Erin, did you
  • 00:43:52
    happen to capture that? Hi, Katie. Can you
  • 00:43:58
    hear me? Yes. Okay. Yes. Let me go
  • 00:44:04
    ahead and type this in. That way it's
  • 00:44:34
    clear that if if we're approving if we
  • 00:44:36
    put this on the combine ballot, we're not
  • 00:44:39
    giving an opinion on what we personally feel
  • 00:44:42
    about NPRR1229. We're just saying it's not a
  • 00:44:44
    ROS issue because it's a financial issue. Right.
  • 00:44:49
    No. I like it. That's that's where I
  • 00:44:51
    was gonna go with it anyways. Okay. Thank
  • 00:44:56
    you, Aaron, for rewarding it. Cyrus, thank you
  • 00:44:58
    for providing the language. Does this look okay
  • 00:45:02
    to everyone? I'll I'll give you a second
  • 00:45:04
    to read it and pop in the queue
  • 00:45:05
    if you disagree. Okay. It looks like we're
  • 00:45:16
    good. My my apologies to folks. I I
  • 00:45:18
    thought I had this, better laid out in
  • 00:45:22
    in my head. But I'm sorry I took
  • 00:45:24
    a little bit of time, but thank you.
  • 00:45:27
    And, now I can close out this item
  • 00:45:28
    and it won't continue to be on the
  • Item 10 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    00:45:30
    agenda next month. Okay. So, that takes us
  • Item 11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
    00:45:44
    let's take up ten and eleven together. So,
  • 00:45:50
    1264, was formally only referred to WMS from
  • 00:45:59
    PRS. I did state that most of it
  • 00:46:02
    looked like it was a WMS issue, and
  • 00:46:05
    so PRS did not refer the NPRR over
  • 00:46:09
    to us. Alright. Yeah. Thank you for confirming
  • 00:46:14
    that, Erin. So, I know ERCOT, talked yesterday
  • 00:46:20
    at WMS. He's looking for a boat at
  • 00:46:24
    the March WMS. We have, under item number
  • 00:46:29
    10, we have the three associated, revisions request
  • 00:46:33
    and over the PGRR and the NOGRR. What
  • 00:46:36
    I, think we could do, is see how
  • 00:46:41
    things go at WMS on the, NPRR, and
  • 00:46:47
    then we could come back and look at
  • 00:46:50
    those, associated RRs, once WMS has made an
  • 00:46:54
    issue made a made a decision. Does that
  • 00:46:58
    sound acceptable to everyone? Okay. Eric's saying it
  • 00:47:02
    works for him. Eric's a sponsor. So okay.
  • 00:47:07
    Any other thoughts on that? Okay. So, Erin,
  • 00:47:12
    I don't know that we needed official action
  • 00:47:15
    on these, but just wanted to be transparent
  • 00:47:18
    on, how I thought we should progress. You're
  • 00:47:23
    right, Katie. We're we're good to go. These
  • 00:47:25
    have already been tabled, the associated, revision request.
  • 00:47:34
    Perfect. Okay. Alright. Well, we'll let you get
  • 00:47:37
    back to the agenda. We're gonna move into
  • 00:47:41
    our team group updates at this time. So,
  • 00:47:48
    let's see. First up, we've got OWG.
  • 00:47:50
    Ricky Tyler? Yeah, Katie. This is Ricky.
  • 00:47:56
    I'm here on the call. Alright. Go ahead.
  • Item 12 - Operations Working Group - OWG - OWG Leadership
    00:47:59
    Alright. So we don't have a a huge
  • 00:48:02
    update this, this time. If you can go
  • Item 12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG - Possible Vote
    00:48:04
    to the next slide, please. There hasn't been
  • 00:48:08
    any change to NPRR1070 this this
  • 00:48:11
    time. It still remains stabled, pending final work
  • 00:48:17
    on this one. So we can go to
  • Item 12.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
    00:48:19
    the next one. NPRR1238. And I
  • 00:48:25
    guess this also corresponds to the next slide,
  • 00:48:27
    which is, the related. We're still waiting on
  • 00:48:33
    our ERCOT to file comments. They did, give
  • 00:48:37
    a presentation at the last OWG meeting covering
  • 00:48:40
    some of the things they were considering. We
  • 00:48:44
    do have that presentation posted on the OWG's
  • 00:48:49
    meeting site from January. So if anybody wants
  • 00:48:53
    to review that presentation, they are it's it's
  • Item 12.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
    00:48:57
    available for their review. But we are still,
  • 00:49:01
    waiting for comments from ERCOT, which we're hoping
  • 00:49:04
    that will be provided, posted by the next
  • 00:49:08
    OWG meeting. So until then, 1238 and over
  • 00:49:15
    265 are still tabled at OWG.
  • 00:49:20
    If you can go to the next
  • 00:49:22
    one. Okay. And this is, yeah, this is
  • 00:49:28
    the same, that I just covered with. So
  • 00:49:30
    if you wanna go to the next slide.
  • 00:49:34
    And, again, for, leadership, as we've shown previously,
  • 00:49:39
    the nomination is for me to still remain
  • 00:49:42
    chair, for Tyler to, be vice chair. And,
  • 00:49:46
    for 2025, we've opted not to have a
  • 00:49:49
    subchair for the hat list, that we we
  • 00:49:53
    feel like we can manage that just through
  • 00:49:55
    the chair and vice chair without having that
  • 00:49:57
    extra position. So that is our, our plan
  • 00:50:02
    for 2025. And one more side maybe. Yeah.
  • 00:50:09
    So there were no other new business to
  • 00:50:12
    discuss, and, that's kind of the OWG report
  • 00:50:16
    for January. Thanks, Ricky, and thanks for continuing
  • 00:50:21
    to serve in that role. Much appreciated. And
  • 00:50:24
    then, Fred, I'm guessing you wanna give us
  • 00:50:26
    an update on the December. Yes. Is Fred,
  • 00:50:32
    just want to check, is my audio okay?
  • 00:50:36
    Sounds perfect to me. Thank you so much.
  • 00:50:39
    So I think for our comments for both
  • 00:50:43
    NPRR and the, if it's not yet posted
  • 00:50:47
    today, now it will be posted later today.
  • 00:50:50
    So, I I think it we are close
  • 00:50:52
    to it, and it should be in the
  • 00:50:54
    process to be posted. And we will also
  • 00:50:57
    be available to go through those comments, at
  • 00:51:01
    the LWG next week. Thank you. Brett, that's
  • 00:51:11
    really great news. Thank you for helping to
  • 00:51:13
    get it over the the finish line. So
  • 00:51:15
    we look forward to discussing those next week
  • Item 13 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - NDSWG Leadership
    00:51:17
    at OWG. Mhmm. Okay. Well, with that, let's,
  • 00:51:28
    let's move on to NDSWG. Can you hear
  • 00:51:34
    me? I can. Go ahead. Oh oh my
  • 00:51:38
    god. Great. Awesome. Yeah. Yes. Next slide. Yeah.
  • 00:51:43
    Please. Next slide, please. Yes. So we had
  • 00:51:48
    a meeting on the 21st, 2025.
  • 00:51:50
    We just had a general discussion. We
  • 00:51:54
    had more people involved this time, this last
  • Item 13.1 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG - Possible Vote
    00:51:57
    time, in our meeting. Just general questions about
  • 00:52:01
    the NDSWG and NPRR1234.
  • 00:52:05
    We did realize later after a meeting post
  • 00:52:08
    our meeting, that there were new comments posted,
  • 00:52:13
    on that Friday of that same week, the
  • 00:52:16
    24. And, so that's something that we'll
  • 00:52:20
    be reviewing further reviewing. Previously, we did endorse
  • 00:52:25
    this NPRR. Due to the new comments, we'll
  • 00:52:29
    have to, take a next second look at
  • 00:52:32
    it. Then we discussed the NIMS upgrade. The
  • 00:52:38
    SIMS 16 model test model will be available
  • 00:52:41
    this, year, August 2025. And then the other
  • 00:52:46
    item we were discussing is the fifteen minute
  • 00:52:49
    rating and the reliability being equal. That's not
  • 00:52:55
    acceptable by ERCOT. So they will be sending
  • 00:52:58
    reports to the TSPs that are involved, to,
  • 00:53:03
    I guess, mitigate or correct this, condition. And,
  • 00:53:10
    let's see. That would be that that would
  • 00:53:12
    be that for this. Next slide, please. Yes.
  • 00:53:16
    And our next meeting, will be Bill Harper,
  • 00:53:21
    our new share. He, well, will be discussing
  • 00:53:25
    this NPRR, the, latest comments, and proceed from
  • 00:53:30
    that point. Any questions? Yeah. We do. Martha,
  • 00:53:35
    go ahead with your question. Yeah. Thanks, Katie.
  • 00:53:37
    It's Martha Henson from Oncor. You know, with
  • 00:53:41
    respect to NPRR1234, the changes
  • 00:53:44
    that ERCOT made in its latest comments actually
  • 00:53:48
    don't impact the modeling section of the NPRR
  • 00:53:50
    at all. The the comments are fairly straightforward,
  • 00:53:54
    and they're the language that they're changing is
  • 00:53:57
    actually related to the planning guide and some
  • 00:54:00
    of the planning criteria in that revision request.
  • 00:54:04
    So, I you know, in anticipation of the
  • 00:54:09
    NPRR and the PGRR being able to move
  • 00:54:11
    forward together ideally, I I would, make a
  • 00:54:15
    recommendation that we go ahead and, you know,
  • 00:54:18
    approve the ERCOT January 24 comments to
  • 00:54:22
    NPRR1234. If the combo ballot isn't workable,
  • 00:54:25
    I'll be glad to make an individual motion.
  • 00:54:28
    But I think maybe NDSWG could also just
  • 00:54:31
    review those on its own during the next
  • 00:54:34
    meeting, to confirm that the scope doesn't affect
  • 00:54:38
    them, and that could probably happen in parallel
  • 00:54:40
    as the NPRR moves forward. Thanks. Thank you.
  • 00:54:53
    Yeah, Martha. I understand that, you know, we
  • 00:54:56
    are trying to move those forward together and,
  • 00:54:58
    you know, under PLWG, we're gonna be trying
  • 00:55:00
    to move forward, PGRR115 today. A
  • 00:55:04
    little more discussion on that. But I'm I'm
  • 00:55:08
    fine if others are fine, with adding this
  • 00:55:11
    to the to the combo ballot. So I'll
  • 00:55:13
    just toss it out there. Anyone opposed to
  • 00:55:17
    adding, NPRR1234 with ERCOT's, latest
  • 00:55:22
    set of comments to the combo ballot. Not
  • 00:55:34
    seeing any. Aaron, can we, okay. Bill, go
  • 00:55:37
    ahead. Yeah. This is, I just wanted to
  • 00:55:41
    make a, a slight comment on, top of
  • 00:55:46
    what I heard from Martha. That's true. Really,
  • 00:55:49
    some of the discussions that we had at
  • 00:55:50
    the PLWG, really simplified some things in the
  • 00:55:55
    NPRR. I think that some of the discussion
  • 00:55:59
    NDSWG wanted to have was because we were
  • 00:56:01
    trying to come up with a term, for
  • 00:56:04
    this transmission service bus. But, I think with
  • 00:56:06
    the work we did at the PLWG, we
  • 00:56:09
    actually simplified some things and and, dropped some
  • 00:56:12
    terms that they were probably gonna be discussing
  • 00:56:16
    there. So I think, the work at PLWG
  • 00:56:19
    does kinda help, some of the issues that
  • 00:56:23
    they were looking at at NDSWG as well.
  • 00:56:25
    So I would like to also request, what
  • 00:56:30
    Martha, had said, to get this on the
  • 00:56:32
    combo ballot. We've done a lot of work.
  • 00:56:34
    It was over in PLWG, and there's been
  • 00:56:38
    a lot of, effort on folks' part to
  • 00:56:42
    get it to this point. And, I think
  • 00:56:44
    that's gonna be more helpful for us to
  • 00:56:46
    go ahead and move this forward and then
  • 00:56:48
    continue to work on things. I've committed to
  • 00:56:51
    work with the TDSPs on some other issues,
  • 00:56:54
    and I think we're also looking at potentially
  • 00:56:57
    having some large large load meetings. I've been
  • 00:57:00
    asked to schedule another one in March. So
  • 00:57:03
    we'll take up some other topics, but I
  • 00:57:05
    think this one's ready to move forward. Thanks,
  • 00:57:11
    Bill. I really appreciate the input. Couple more
  • 00:57:15
    in the queue, and then we'll see what
  • 00:57:16
    we can do. Bob Whitmire and then Bill
  • 00:57:19
    Barnes. Yeah. Is my audio okay? You're so
  • 00:57:22
    faint, Bob. Dang it. I'm having a hard
  • 00:57:25
    time with this. I'll talk a lot of
  • 00:57:27
    them. Yeah. I I think it makes a
  • 00:57:30
    lot of sense to move 1234
  • 00:57:32
    out of ROS, but I think we
  • 00:57:36
    still have issues at WMS on pricing that
  • 00:57:39
    are not related to ROS. I'm good for
  • 00:57:42
    it moving here, but I'm going to object
  • 00:57:44
    to it moving at PRS. Thank you. Okay.
  • 00:57:52
    Bob, thanks for that. Bill Barnes. Yeah. Thanks,
  • 00:57:56
    Katie. We are also supportive of moving, NPRR1234
  • 00:58:00
    today. We are still entertaining
  • 00:58:03
    the notion, either at WMS or PRS of
  • 00:58:08
    increasing the fee. In the NPRR, we we've
  • 00:58:13
    kinda tabled 1202. I don't know
  • 00:58:16
    if Bill Blevins has an update. I think
  • 00:58:18
    ERCOT was going to kinda take that back
  • 00:58:22
    and discuss further whether they'd be okay increasing
  • 00:58:26
    the fees so that there are funds available
  • 00:58:27
    at some point to allocate in the budget
  • 00:58:29
    for increasing, capabilities to process these. We'd rather
  • 00:58:34
    do that now than wait. We're we're not
  • 00:58:37
    pros proposing it today, but just heads up
  • 00:58:40
    at PRS or WMS or some other future
  • 00:58:42
    meeting, we may be suggesting a desk edit
  • 00:58:45
    to increase that fee from 14 to some
  • 00:58:47
    larger number. Thanks. Yeah. This is Bill. I'll
  • 00:58:54
    I'll, just we are going back and looking
  • 00:58:57
    at the, the fees in general for interconnection.
  • 00:59:03
    We've got a lot more work going on
  • 00:59:04
    and, we're we've got a lot more activities.
  • 00:59:07
    So we will be adjusting those fees. We'll
  • 00:59:09
    probably be filing, some comments when we when
  • 00:59:12
    we get that done. But, I I think
  • 00:59:16
    we will, be adjusting those fees. I think
  • 00:59:18
    it's 14,000, which is similar to the large
  • 00:59:21
    our large gen fee right now. But we
  • 00:59:23
    probably expect those to go up because of
  • 00:59:27
    the amount of, cost involved for our time.
  • 00:59:31
    So we're recalculating that. So, Bill, you will
  • 00:59:34
    see some comments that will, before we approve
  • 00:59:36
    this, that we'll adjust that fee. Thank you,
  • 00:59:39
    sir. Appreciate it. Thanks, both bills. Okay. The
  • 00:59:43
    queue is clear from here. It sounded like
  • 00:59:47
    everyone that spoke was supportive of adding it
  • 00:59:49
    to the combo ballot. So can we see
  • 00:59:52
    what that will look like, Aaron? Alright. That
  • 01:00:07
    looks consistent with what Martha's motion was or
  • 01:00:10
    non motion was since we can't do that
  • 01:00:12
    since it's on the combo ballot, but, that
  • 01:00:15
    does look consistent. Okay. So considering that we're
  • 01:00:18
    gonna be moving into a couple of meaty
  • Item 12.4 - Break
    01:00:21
    items under PLWG and IBRWG, I propose that
  • 01:00:26
    we we take a ten minute break now
  • 01:00:28
    just so people can stretch their legs and
  • 01:00:31
    refresh, and then we'll come back at 10:40
  • 01:00:35
    and hit the PLWG topics. Alright, everyone. That's,
  • 01:02:12
    10:40, so let's reconvene. This takes us Oncor
  • 01:02:21
    PLWG. So let's, let's do this, Dylan, if
  • 01:02:24
    it's okay with you. I'm gonna let you
  • 01:02:28
    roll through your presentation, and then I, have
  • 01:02:32
    a proposed action plan for, PGRR115.
  • 01:02:37
    So why don't we let you pro go
  • 01:02:39
    through your presentation, and and then I'll I'll
  • 01:02:41
    pick it up with PGRR115. I've got a
  • 01:02:43
    layout for that. So take it away. Appreciate
  • Item 14 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - PLWG Leadership
    01:02:47
    it, Katie. Good morning, everybody. This is Dylan
  • Item 14.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote
    01:02:50
    Preece, outgoing chair of PLWG. PLWG met on
  • 01:02:56
    January 29 where we discussed PGRR115
  • 01:03:00
    interconnection requirements for large load and modeling standards
  • 01:03:03
    for loads 25 megawatts or greater. We reviewed
  • 01:03:07
    ERCOT steel mill comments and ERCOT comments. And
  • 01:03:12
    starting with, ERCOT January 2024 comments, PLWG
  • 01:03:16
    provided desktop edits and submitted, PGRR115
  • 01:03:20
    dash 19. PLWG comments dated 01/30/2025 with majority
  • 01:03:26
    consensus. ERCOT Steel Mills offered language not accepted
  • 01:03:30
    by the majority and submitted, figure, 15 dash
  • 01:03:34
    19. ERCOT Steel Mill comments dated 01/29/2025. Based
  • 01:03:40
    on where we ended, PLWG completed its work
  • 01:03:42
    with PGRR115 and recommends
  • Item 14.2 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG - Possible Vote
    01:03:45
    that ROS consider approving this revision request. PLWG
  • 01:03:55
    also took up PGRR119, stability constraint
  • 01:03:58
    modeling assumptions in the RTP, where we reviewed
  • 01:04:02
    comments submitted by joint commenters. Based on discussion,
  • 01:04:05
    PLWG reached consensus on this one, and our
  • 01:04:09
    action is that we completed the work on
  • 01:04:11
    PGRR119 and recommend that ROS consider
  • Item 14.3 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection - PLWG - DWG - Possible Vote
    01:04:13
    approving this revision request. On the PGRR120,
  • 01:04:22
    SSL prevention for generation interconnection, PLWG PLWG
  • 01:04:28
    reviewed ERCOT draft comments and AEP comments, and
  • 01:04:32
    some of the discussion included ERCOT edits to
  • 01:04:35
    ensure that lane language is explicitly applicable to
  • 01:04:38
    generation transmission generation resources as well as AEP's
  • 01:04:44
    proposed language, which would prevent new generation resources
  • 01:04:48
    to interconnect to a serious compensated circuit if
  • 01:04:51
    the system is reinforced such that n minus
  • 01:04:53
    one contingency event is no longer caused the
  • 01:04:57
    generation resource to become radial to the series
  • 01:04:59
    cap. Long sentence there. Based on where we
  • 01:05:03
    ended, we tabled PGRR120, pending further
  • Item 14.4 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load - DWG - PLWG - Possible Vote
    01:05:06
    discussion at PLWG February. And we also took
  • 01:05:14
    up, PGRR122, reliability performance criteria
  • 01:05:18
    for loss of load. PLWG, reviewed AEP comments.
  • 01:05:22
    Discussion included the addition of the term non
  • 01:05:25
    consequential load loss and concerns that that term
  • 01:05:29
    does not include loss of voltage sensitive load.
  • 01:05:32
    Maintenance outage events versus two nonrelated n minus
  • 01:05:36
    one events were discussed, that that resulted in
  • 01:05:40
    loss of load of a thousand megawatts or
  • 01:05:41
    more was also discussed. Based on where we
  • 01:05:44
    ended that discussion, we tabled, PGRR122
  • 01:05:47
    for further discussion at it at our
  • 01:05:49
    February PLWG meeting. The congestion cost savings test
  • 01:06:00
    white paper where ERCOT changed the, inflation rate
  • 01:06:05
    from 2% to 2.2%. ERCOT plans to post
  • 01:06:09
    the final document to the ERCOT planning, planning
  • 01:06:13
    website soon. The inflation rate was the only
  • 01:06:15
    thing that's gonna change in that white paper.
  • 01:06:24
    We do have our action items of aligning
  • 01:06:27
    the term load, in the planning guides with
  • 01:06:31
    the definition in protocol section two. At at
  • 01:06:34
    January, PLWG meeting, we TAC section 4 of
  • 01:06:38
    the ERCOT planning guide and provided, edits
  • 01:06:41
    to that section and posted we'll post that
  • 01:06:46
    and continue that effort on into 2025. So
  • 01:07:01
    do we wanna take Alex's comment on figure
  • 01:07:03
    one nineteen before we jump into this? Can
  • 01:07:06
    you can you wait so we can take
  • 01:07:08
    the voting items up? We're gonna go with
  • 01:07:10
    PGRR115. I got a, I think we're
  • 01:07:13
    gonna have some discussion there. So can can
  • 01:07:15
    you just hold off until we get to
  • 01:07:16
    the one nineteen? So, PGRR120 and PGRR122
  • 01:07:20
    are staying, table. Okay. Thank you
  • 01:07:23
    so much, Alex. Dylan, thank you so much
  • 01:07:25
    for your leadership. Thank you for your update,
  • 01:07:28
    Especially, thank you for continuing to work on
  • 01:07:30
    this last item with the open action items.
  • 01:07:33
    I know that's a bit of a commitment,
  • 01:07:35
    so thank you for that. Okay. So let
  • Item 14.1 - PGRR115 Additional Discussion
    01:07:38
    me lay this out here for us. So
  • 01:07:42
    what we have today, we've got consensus language
  • 01:07:46
    on PGRR115. So those include, edits
  • 01:07:52
    to three different sections. We had language from
  • 01:07:58
    VISTRA and CenterPoint, some minor cleanup, and then
  • 01:08:04
    we had, this paragraph seven. If we want
  • 01:08:11
    to go down, can we go down to
  • 01:08:13
    that paragraph? Yes. Well, it was there, but
  • 01:08:20
    wherever it is in the okay. Alright. So
  • 01:08:24
    the PLWG consensus language is what appears in
  • 01:08:30
    seven now. Each large load included in a
  • 01:08:33
    planning study shall be set, at a level
  • 01:08:37
    of demand consistent with the current load commissioning
  • 01:08:40
    plan. Okay. There was a lot of discussion
  • 01:08:43
    at PLWG, because Still Mills proposed, different language.
  • 01:08:50
    What I want to ask ERCOT, Bill, is
  • 01:08:55
    it seems, in my opinion, that, the definition
  • 01:09:00
    of the load commissioning plan provides that clarification
  • 01:09:04
    without making any changes to this language, which
  • 01:09:08
    some said would have unintended consequences and change
  • 01:09:13
    the context of this. Bill, do do you
  • 01:09:16
    have a an opinion on that? Yeah. I
  • 01:09:23
    I guess at the meeting, we did discuss
  • 01:09:25
    this, as, some additional language. I think at
  • 01:09:32
    the meeting at the time, we we said
  • 01:09:34
    it wasn't necessary in our opinion because we
  • 01:09:37
    felt like the definition did already address, the
  • 01:09:41
    concern that was raised. But then the alternate
  • 01:09:45
    language was put up there. We weren't certain
  • 01:09:47
    if it would create any conflict. I think
  • 01:09:51
    since the meeting and, I guess, the discussion
  • 01:09:53
    at the PLWG, I think we're we're more
  • 01:09:58
    supportive of the language as it stands right
  • 01:10:00
    now with what you see there. So that
  • 01:10:02
    would be the option that we would prefer.
  • 01:10:04
    We believe the other suggestion might have some
  • 01:10:09
    unintended consequences, but in general, it it's already
  • 01:10:13
    been addressed in the definition as you're mentioning,
  • 01:10:17
    which entities would have the load commissioning plan
  • 01:10:20
    that are large loads. And that was the
  • 01:10:22
    main concern from the Still Mills. So we think
  • 01:10:24
    that's been addressed already with the language, and,
  • 01:10:26
    we would prefer to go with the the
  • 01:10:28
    consensus of the PLWG and leave the language
  • 01:10:31
    as it is. Okay, Bill. Thanks for that
  • 01:10:35
    that clarification. So, let me keep moving through,
  • 01:10:42
    Aaron. So then since, the PLWG discussion last
  • 01:10:47
    week, CenterPoint filed some, I think. Back and
  • 01:10:53
    finish talking about items that I was gonna
  • 01:10:58
    give folks a chance to talk about their
  • 01:11:01
    comments. I'm trying to lay this out right
  • 01:11:03
    now. So if you could just stay in
  • 01:11:05
    the queue, that would be appreciated. Okay. So,
  • 01:11:11
    Aaron, so CenterPoint filed some comments late yesterday.
  • 01:11:16
    It was one change where where it's trying
  • 01:11:20
    to make it clear that ERCOT will work
  • 01:11:22
    in collaboration with the lead TDSP to determine
  • 01:11:27
    the study scope and if more studies are
  • 01:11:30
    needed, but they changed that in multiple places.
  • 01:11:38
    Jim, I think I've I think I got
  • 01:11:40
    that correct. You know, pop in the queue
  • 01:11:42
    if if I didn't. But I just wanted
  • 01:11:45
    to show folks that even though these were
  • 01:11:48
    were late filed, I know that CenterPoint had
  • 01:11:51
    some discussions with Bill, and others at ERCOT
  • 01:11:55
    about this language. And so while it looks
  • 01:11:58
    like a lot, it's it's really one, kind
  • 01:12:01
    of a you know, seems like a fairly
  • 01:12:03
    important clarification that's just made in in multiple
  • 01:12:06
    places. Okay. So Jim's confirming I got that
  • 01:12:09
    right. Okay. So that's before us today. And
  • 01:12:15
    then the other thing that's before us is
  • 01:12:19
    Google filed comments Tuesday night that would remove
  • 01:12:26
    the one, gigawatt cap for large loads. But,
  • 01:12:32
    my understanding is that ERCOT has commissioned a
  • 01:12:35
    study to determine what the right limit will
  • 01:12:39
    be and, you know, it might take a
  • 01:12:41
    couple months, but that bill will certainly, report
  • 01:12:45
    back on that. And so Google will have
  • 01:12:48
    a chance to, weigh in on that as
  • 01:12:52
    will any other stakeholders on what that limit
  • 01:12:55
    is. Is that correct, Bill? Yeah. We feel
  • 01:13:00
    like, we're already addressing kind of, some of
  • 01:13:03
    the, comments that Google had made, on the
  • 01:13:08
    one gigawatt with the fact that we're already
  • 01:13:10
    doing the study. And, I guess, our opinion
  • 01:13:16
    is that, the one gigawatt was based on
  • 01:13:19
    a prior study. It was based on the
  • 01:13:21
    Southern Cross, study. So, you know, as far
  • 01:13:25
    as, where we came up with the number,
  • 01:13:27
    we took a conservative number from a prior
  • 01:13:30
    study. But because that study is older, it
  • 01:13:34
    may be outdated, and we wanna look at
  • 01:13:36
    this system again, and try to improve the
  • 01:13:39
    the number because everybody would like that number
  • 01:13:41
    to be, somewhat higher. We'll just see if
  • 01:13:43
    that's reliable, and we can do that through
  • 01:13:45
    the study. I've talked to the folks that
  • 01:13:47
    are doing the study. They've already kicked it
  • 01:13:49
    off. So I think, we've got maybe a
  • 01:13:51
    a couple of months possibly before we'll get
  • 01:13:54
    those numbers back. But our intention is Oncor
  • 01:13:56
    that study is done to, amend the one
  • 01:14:00
    gigawatt, to whatever the study would would say
  • 01:14:03
    is, reliable. Okay, Bill. Thank you for confirming
  • 01:14:10
    that. And and if there's someone from from
  • 01:14:13
    Google on that, you know, needs to expand
  • 01:14:16
    in their comments because I didn't I didn't
  • 01:14:18
    cover it accurately, pop in the queue. Okay.
  • 01:14:23
    Chris, did you have something you wanted to
  • 01:14:26
    add to your comments? Yeah. And I appreciate
  • 01:14:30
    the context of of an additional study being
  • 01:14:33
    carried out. And and PGRR115 is is
  • 01:14:36
    really more tied into PGRR122 as
  • 01:14:38
    the logic sort of seems to apply to
  • 01:14:40
    both even though the PGRR115 scope is
  • 01:14:43
    is somewhat limiting to those contingencies. I think
  • 01:14:48
    the issue at hand for us then is
  • 01:14:50
    if the study is being completed, why go
  • 01:14:54
    about implementing something that you're then going to
  • 01:14:58
    have to re amend again in, say, seven
  • 01:15:02
    to eight months? I don't think it's really
  • 01:15:05
    necessary from a procedural perspective to implement this
  • 01:15:09
    now and in this PGRR when you're gonna
  • 01:15:13
    come back and visit it, and you're also
  • 01:15:14
    having simultaneous discussions in PGRR122 about
  • 01:15:18
    the broader system impact. Yeah. This is the
  • 01:15:28
    And and that's really, you know Yep. Got
  • 01:15:30
    it. To open dialogue with with ERCOT on.
  • 01:15:35
    Yeah. Sorry, Chris. This is Bill. Can y'all
  • 01:15:38
    hear me? I was just gonna, you know
  • 01:15:41
    I think one of the things because I've
  • 01:15:43
    been involved with this since the beginning and,
  • 01:15:45
    you know, the one gigawatt was inserted into
  • 01:15:48
    the figure at at some point later. Basically,
  • 01:15:55
    we have so many large loads of such
  • 01:15:59
    size that, we needed to put a number
  • 01:16:03
    in there that was a reliable number because
  • 01:16:05
    people were already trying to build things that
  • 01:16:08
    were above a range that we thought would
  • 01:16:11
    be reliable. We were getting feedback from transmission
  • 01:16:13
    companies that people wanted two, three gigawatt type
  • 01:16:17
    single connections, which we do believe that can't
  • 01:16:20
    be supported. So we needed to put something
  • 01:16:23
    in there. Our intention is to put that
  • 01:16:26
    in because we know it's reliable and then
  • 01:16:28
    adjust it when we see the results. So
  • 01:16:30
    I think there's the reason why we put
  • 01:16:32
    it in there. I think it is necessary
  • 01:16:33
    because we are getting people that are requesting
  • 01:16:36
    much larger connections, and we don't know if
  • 01:16:39
    that would be reliable yet. What's the largest
  • 01:16:44
    load interconnected or at least approved for interconnection
  • 01:16:49
    right now? We did not approve anything above
  • 01:16:53
    a gigawatt, as a single connection. And so
  • 01:16:59
    the the point that I would be, making
  • 01:17:02
    is when we looked at this one gigawatt
  • 01:17:04
    that we put into the bigger, we felt
  • 01:17:06
    like we had a study that we could
  • 01:17:08
    go by, which was an older study, that
  • 01:17:11
    gave us indications that that was a good
  • 01:17:12
    number. And, yeah, we hadn't approved any connections
  • 01:17:17
    greater than the gig. So when we put
  • 01:17:20
    that in there, we saw that it was
  • 01:17:21
    important to put that out there so that
  • 01:17:23
    any future projects would see that and understand
  • 01:17:26
    that they need to look at, whether or
  • 01:17:29
    not they can connect that large of amount
  • 01:17:31
    of a load. But we did have some,
  • 01:17:33
    like, two gigawatt single tie line type puzzles,
  • 01:17:36
    and we don't have any criteria. There's no
  • 01:17:39
    criteria that I'm aware of in The United
  • 01:17:41
    States. So this is new criteria we're gonna
  • 01:17:43
    have to come up with. Thanks, Bill. I
  • 01:17:50
    have one last Go ahead, Chris. That's okay.
  • 01:17:54
    And so for existing sites, the intent to
  • 01:17:57
    also then limit any existing site from expansion
  • 01:18:00
    with this? I mean, not just specific to
  • 01:18:04
    this PGRR, obviously, but also in in PGRR122.
  • 01:18:09
    Yeah. I guess, I just wanna make sure
  • 01:18:11
    that it's clear that this limit is on
  • 01:18:14
    a single connection. So if you want more
  • 01:18:17
    than one gigawatt, you can have more than
  • 01:18:19
    one connection. And so there are ways to
  • 01:18:22
    go ahead and do that. We just didn't
  • 01:18:23
    want a single contingency to be greater than
  • 01:18:26
    some amount that we could, withstand on the
  • 01:18:28
    grid. I'll let others speak before I continue.
  • 01:18:38
    Okay. Did that answer your question, Chris? Because
  • 01:18:41
    we were gonna move on. It's a start,
  • 01:18:45
    but I I don't feel that the gigawatt
  • 01:18:50
    limit is really an approach that is equitable
  • 01:18:56
    in the long run. In this bigger rate,
  • 01:18:57
    we have limited to the contingencies of P1
  • 01:19:00
    and P7, which is a fairly
  • 01:19:02
    radial point, but this is replicating into other
  • 01:19:05
    areas. And and I'm concerned that the logic
  • 01:19:10
    here is based it's not really, like, stemming
  • 01:19:15
    from points of reliability. It's just heavy handed
  • 01:19:18
    in a way to contain a broader issue
  • 01:19:20
    that ERCOT wants to address. But I I
  • 01:19:25
    I feel like the fact that they're, coming
  • 01:19:29
    back with an actual study, I think that's
  • 01:19:32
    something that people can point back to and
  • 01:19:34
    see analysis on. Okay. So with that, we've
  • 01:19:38
    we've got another queue building. Okay. So I've
  • 01:19:41
    covered all of the new comments that have
  • 01:19:44
    been filed. Floyd wants to go back and
  • 01:19:48
    respond to, I guess, the change and the
  • 01:19:53
    difference in the language in that paragraph seven
  • 01:19:55
    that we just covered. So, I'll let him
  • 01:19:59
    do that, and then we'll move through the
  • 01:20:02
    rest of the queue. Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate
  • 01:20:07
    that. Item seven, unfortunately, the way I read
  • 01:20:14
    that, it says that all large loads have
  • 01:20:20
    to create a large load in our connection
  • 01:20:24
    plan. And so you it keeps moving around
  • 01:20:32
    on the screen there. Where we were was
  • 01:20:35
    fine. The so what we don't want I
  • 01:20:46
    I assume nobody wants all large loads to
  • 01:20:52
    create a load commissioning plan. But you could
  • 01:20:56
    read this sentence to say that that's what
  • 01:20:59
    has to be done because it doesn't exist,
  • 01:21:03
    and so you have to create one. So
  • 01:21:06
    to me, the large load definition of all
  • 01:21:12
    large loads greater than 75 megawatts including Bolero,
  • 01:21:16
    Exxon, DuPont, whatever, have to create this load
  • 01:21:21
    commissioning plan. And that's what I'm trying to
  • 01:21:26
    solve is make sure that I don't think
  • 01:21:30
    anybody wants that to happen. So we took
  • 01:21:37
    the language that is in blue there from
  • 01:21:43
    comments that ERCOT had made in other sections
  • 01:21:46
    of PGRR115 and added it to
  • 01:21:53
    clarify that it's only those large loads subject
  • 01:21:58
    to section nine two one applicability. And then
  • 01:22:02
    that solved the problem from my perspective. So
  • 01:22:08
    with that, earlier, someone mentioned we had consensus.
  • 01:22:15
    I submit we don't have consensus at all,
  • 01:22:19
    that that's a PLWG. So, that's kind of
  • 01:22:22
    where we are. Okay. So, I think we
  • 01:22:26
    I think they made it clear in their
  • 01:22:27
    comments that they had consensus on everything but
  • 01:22:30
    this language, which is why it's shown the
  • 01:22:33
    way it is. So I think they were
  • 01:22:35
    fair in how they, captured the the PLWG
  • 01:22:39
    comments. Bill, do you wanna respond to this
  • 01:22:43
    quickly, and then and then I'll move back
  • 01:22:45
    through the queue? Yeah. I guess, I think
  • 01:22:53
    the the point where we kind of, support
  • 01:22:57
    language on, item one I guess, the option
  • 01:23:00
    one, I would say, is because, mainly, we
  • 01:23:04
    don't know if that language in this section
  • 01:23:06
    that Floyd's saying that it was used from
  • 01:23:08
    some other, part of ERCOT comments would change
  • 01:23:12
    any intent. We know that we feel like
  • 01:23:17
    we've already addressed the issue in the the
  • 01:23:19
    definition of load commissioning plan would only apply
  • 01:23:22
    to those loads that are going through and
  • 01:23:24
    and actually trying to ramp up. So I
  • 01:23:29
    don't think anybody else read it the way
  • 01:23:32
    that, Floyd said you could read it, in
  • 01:23:36
    the PLWG, and ERCOT wasn't reading that way.
  • 01:23:39
    So I think we're just saying we prefer,
  • 01:23:43
    option a because, that's the one most people,
  • 01:23:47
    were comfortable with, and we feel like it's
  • 01:23:50
    unnecessary to make the other change because the
  • 01:23:52
    definition already addresses that issue. Okay. Thank you,
  • 01:23:59
    Bill. Alright. Let's see. We've got Eric Goff
  • 01:24:04
    next. Yeah. This is Eric Gough on behalf
  • 01:24:10
    of Valencium. I just wanted to give an
  • 01:24:16
    an additional me too voice to the comments
  • 01:24:19
    that Chris was making. I think Bob Whitmire
  • 01:24:22
    has a good idea in the comments to
  • 01:24:25
    at least address this temporarily. But I do
  • 01:24:29
    think that it's, you know, lots of loads
  • 01:24:32
    have intentions to get to, you know, very
  • 01:24:35
    large sizes in a reliable way by making,
  • 01:24:39
    you know, an enormous investments, into their data
  • 01:24:43
    centers and other types of loads. And those
  • 01:24:48
    investments are such a scale. They'll want to
  • 01:24:49
    operate reliably. I I see this as kind
  • 01:24:53
    of a stopgap measure for now while we
  • 01:24:56
    all kinda work out how, to get there.
  • 01:25:00
    And it it'd be really helpful for ERCOT
  • 01:25:02
    to, you know, to be clear to say
  • 01:25:06
    you're open to larger loads, but you want
  • 01:25:08
    them to be connected in a way that
  • 01:25:10
    you you feel comfortable with. And I I
  • 01:25:12
    think that's all our our intention. And and
  • 01:25:15
    this, maybe, first effort is just a little
  • 01:25:18
    heavy handed. So, for example, you know, Bill,
  • 01:25:23
    you talked about, a a load over a
  • 01:25:28
    thousand with a single connection. And and there's
  • 01:25:32
    some nuance in there that I think a
  • 01:25:33
    lot of us understand, but it might not
  • 01:25:35
    be clear if you're just paying, you know,
  • 01:25:37
    not paying super close attention and just think
  • 01:25:39
    there's a limit of a thousand, and it's
  • 01:25:41
    that's what it is. So I think it
  • 01:25:45
    should be helpful if if we move forward
  • 01:25:47
    with this just to be clear that we
  • 01:25:50
    we have intentions of trying to accommodate these
  • 01:25:52
    loads, and we just need to figure out
  • 01:25:53
    the right right right ways to do that.
  • 01:25:55
    Thanks. Thanks, Derek. Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Bill.
  • 01:26:02
    I will I'll just mention that, you know,
  • 01:26:05
    we are under do underway with the study.
  • 01:26:09
    And, you know, our point is that, as
  • 01:26:12
    soon as we can find out or determine
  • 01:26:13
    the we can raise that, number, reliably, then
  • 01:26:18
    I think we intend on doing that. Our
  • 01:26:21
    intention is to get the right number, in
  • 01:26:24
    in the protocol. Right now, we think we
  • 01:26:26
    have the right number because it's based on
  • 01:26:28
    some reliability information that we already studied, and
  • 01:26:31
    we think that that number could be improved
  • 01:26:34
    through another study, which is what we're doing.
  • 01:26:36
    So we do have that intention to get
  • 01:26:38
    that as correct as possible. The thing is
  • 01:26:41
    the system changes all the time, so that
  • 01:26:44
    number could change. And we need to have
  • 01:26:46
    a kind of a conservative number that will
  • 01:26:48
    work for, you know, ERCOT conditions all the
  • 01:26:51
    time. So that's what the study is gonna
  • 01:26:52
    do, And I think it's important to go
  • 01:26:54
    ahead and get that before we actually make
  • 01:26:56
    any adjustments. Okay. And, to the extent that
  • 01:27:00
    you're willing, we'd love to give feedback on
  • 01:27:03
    on the study, at some point before you
  • 01:27:06
    finalize it. Just, you know, that way we
  • 01:27:08
    don't have to, you know, do it after
  • 01:27:10
    you've officially published something. But I I I
  • 01:27:13
    appreciate what you're doing and what you're saying.
  • 01:27:14
    And, you you know, what I'd like to
  • 01:27:17
    see from this is that people understand that
  • 01:27:18
    this is a work in progress. Yeah. And
  • 01:27:23
    and I just wanna make sure people know
  • 01:27:25
    that, you know, we've already I think somewhere
  • 01:27:27
    in the order of maybe 18 gigawatts of
  • 01:27:29
    large load have been reviewed through their study,
  • 01:27:32
    their individual studies with the utilities and have
  • 01:27:35
    been approved. I think we've got something like,
  • 01:27:37
    potentially, six gigawatts that's already been approved that
  • 01:27:42
    should be going into the model. I think
  • 01:27:44
    we had probably about four gigawatts that's actually
  • 01:27:46
    energized and consuming. So we've been working, on
  • 01:27:50
    this, and we will continue to work on
  • 01:27:52
    this. It's important to the state. It's important
  • 01:27:54
    to ERCOT. So, that's our commitment. Thanks, Bill.
  • 01:28:00
    Okay. Let's, let's move on. Blake King is
  • 01:28:04
    next in the queue. Yeah. Aside from agreeing
  • 01:28:08
    with Eric and Chris's comments, I just had
  • 01:28:11
    a a question for Bill. So you mentioned
  • 01:28:14
    that you haven't approved requests over one gigawatt.
  • 01:28:17
    I just is that because people haven't requested
  • 01:28:20
    more than one gigawatt? And if they have,
  • 01:28:22
    those projects haven't made it through the process
  • 01:28:24
    yet, or are you guys applying the one
  • 01:28:28
    gigawatt limit to existing requests before this rule
  • 01:28:33
    has made it through this process? You know,
  • 01:28:38
    to be honest, I can't probably give you,
  • 01:28:41
    how it all played out, but I guess
  • 01:28:43
    what we were hearing was we started to
  • 01:28:45
    get some, interest. We hadn't had anything officially
  • 01:28:49
    submitted to ERCOT. So everything that we had
  • 01:28:52
    had submitted to ERCOT, at that point was
  • 01:28:56
    one gigawatt or less type of request. So
  • 01:28:58
    when we came out with the one gigawatt,
  • 01:29:00
    we had not approved anything. Now I think
  • 01:29:02
    there are some requests for bigger amounts that
  • 01:29:04
    are getting studied since we've put that rollout.
  • 01:29:10
    But, at that point, we hadn't had any
  • 01:29:12
    requests that were in our interconnection queue that
  • 01:29:15
    were greater than that one gigawatt. So the
  • 01:29:22
    requests that are in the process right now,
  • 01:29:24
    is it your all's determination to use this
  • 01:29:27
    one gigawatt limit right right now, or will
  • 01:29:30
    those requests do you see my question? Yeah.
  • 01:29:36
    We do not expect to, approve something until
  • 01:29:39
    we have a study that says we can
  • 01:29:42
    do that. This is a system wide frequency.
  • 01:29:44
    So our attention is that, we're adhering to
  • 01:29:48
    what's in that. We're actually under the market
  • 01:29:51
    notice. We don't have any approvals, so that's
  • 01:29:54
    what we're trying to get. It's all over
  • 01:29:55
    here in PGRR115. So, yeah, right now, we
  • 01:29:59
    do, expect that we'll apply to one gigawatt
  • 01:30:02
    limit for any request. And whenever the study
  • 01:30:06
    gets back, we may officially file into the
  • 01:30:10
    PGRR so that people can use that to
  • 01:30:14
    manage how they wanna design their facilities. Okay.
  • 01:30:19
    Thanks, Phil. Let's move on. Martha Keith Martha
  • 01:30:22
    Henson's next up in the queue. Thanks. Can
  • 01:30:25
    you hear me, Katie? Loud and clear. Okay.
  • 01:30:29
    Thanks. Yeah. Martha Henson with Oncor. I actually
  • 01:30:32
    wanted to respond to Floyd's comments, so kinda
  • 01:30:35
    switching gears back in that direction a little
  • 01:30:37
    bit. You know, I I understand that, Floyd's
  • 01:30:41
    trying to ensure that it's clear that this
  • 01:30:44
    paragraph seven doesn't apply to existing customers already
  • 01:30:48
    in service. I don't think Oncor has any
  • 01:30:50
    objections to what he's intending to do. We
  • 01:30:52
    just wanna make make sure that, what he's
  • 01:30:55
    after isn't, like, you know, unintentionally convoluting the
  • 01:31:00
    meaning of that particular paragraph. I would I
  • 01:31:05
    would like to propose that, the center point
  • 01:31:08
    comments move forward today. If it's not possible
  • 01:31:13
    to put those on the combo ballot, I
  • 01:31:15
    will make the motion to, recommend approval of
  • 01:31:19
    those. The the math is that the PGRR
  • 01:31:22
    would be coming back to RAS next month
  • 01:31:24
    for impact analysis review anyway before it moves
  • 01:31:28
    up the chain. And, Floyd, I'd be happy
  • 01:31:31
    to talk with you, you know, after the
  • 01:31:33
    meeting offline to see if there's some some
  • 01:31:35
    small tweak that could be made there, and
  • 01:31:39
    filed as comments by someone when the impact
  • 01:31:42
    analysis comes back next month to be looked
  • 01:31:45
    at. We just didn't have a lot of
  • 01:31:47
    time between PLWG last week and the meeting
  • 01:31:50
    today to to get on the same page
  • 01:31:52
    with this particular paragraph. Thanks. Thanks, Martha. I
  • 01:31:57
    know, Bob Whitmire's dropped some language in the
  • 01:32:01
    queue. Maybe, that's something you guys could could
  • 01:32:05
    look in and look at offline and and
  • 01:32:08
    weigh in on. Bob, did you wanna make
  • 01:32:12
    another comment? Or or is what's in the
  • 01:32:15
    queue what you wanted to, make sure we
  • 01:32:18
    all saw? I'll just make one more comment,
  • 01:32:20
    and that's to Bill Blevins. Bill, am I
  • 01:32:24
    correct in assuming that ERCOT it is not
  • 01:32:27
    ERCOT's intent to limit a facility to one
  • 01:32:31
    gigawatt. It is ERCOT's intent to limit load
  • 01:32:36
    loss to one gigawatt. I don't know that
  • 01:32:39
    we have the words perfectly correct, but I
  • 01:32:42
    think that's what Bill is trying to say.
  • 01:32:45
    Bill, could you confirm that, please? Yeah. I
  • 01:32:49
    I think that, a single connection or a
  • 01:32:54
    single contingency right now is what we're trying
  • 01:32:58
    to address, because we were getting request for
  • 01:33:02
    people to build single tie lines that would
  • 01:33:04
    make a much larger contingency, which is impacting
  • 01:33:08
    the rest of the entire ERCOT system, and
  • 01:33:10
    we feel like that has to be studied
  • 01:33:12
    before we can go ahead and, adjust it.
  • 01:33:15
    We did pick a number that came from
  • 01:33:16
    a study. We did not go out there
  • 01:33:19
    and just pick a number. We used the
  • 01:33:21
    older, Southern Cross study to, use a value
  • 01:33:26
    that we know is reliable, and then we
  • 01:33:29
    started a study to update that number. So
  • 01:33:34
    that is correct. We do not intend on
  • 01:33:35
    trying to limit the entire facility, but a
  • 01:33:39
    single connection or in the amount of load
  • 01:33:41
    loss that we would have from that one
  • 01:33:43
    contingency. Thanks, Bill. Thank you, Bill. I thought
  • 01:33:49
    that's what you're trying to say. Okay. Ken
  • 01:33:53
    Bowen. Hey. Good morning. Can you hear me?
  • 01:34:01
    We can. Go ahead, Ken. Oh, good. Okay.
  • 01:34:07
    Yeah. Based on Floyd's comment, I guess I
  • 01:34:09
    did have a little bit of a confusion
  • 01:34:11
    on nine point two point one. So if
  • 01:34:19
    I'm understanding the previous market notice where, the
  • 01:34:24
    loads that were greater than 75 megawatts within
  • 01:34:27
    two years, had to go through this process
  • 01:34:30
    with ERCOT, with the changes we're doing here
  • 01:34:35
    today, if a load fell outside of that,
  • 01:34:41
    let's say they're reaching 75 megawatts in four
  • 01:34:44
    years, according to nine two one, is that
  • 01:34:49
    load now considered a new large load even
  • 01:34:53
    though we might have signed a contract for
  • 01:34:55
    it two years ago and they're, you know,
  • 01:34:58
    not reaching their full 75 megawatts or above
  • 01:35:02
    until five years from now. And so it
  • 01:35:03
    was kind of excluded from this process for
  • 01:35:06
    the last couple of years that ERCOT has
  • 01:35:08
    had in place. Is my question making sense?
  • 01:35:13
    Yeah. Ken, I'll I'll just take it this
  • 01:35:15
    way. We're under the market notice right now.
  • 01:35:18
    So, the market notice requires loads that are
  • 01:35:22
    trying to come in that that are greater
  • 01:35:23
    than 75 megawatts if they're standalone Oncor 20
  • 01:35:26
    megawatts if they're co located if they're trying
  • 01:35:29
    to come in in less than two year
  • 01:35:30
    time frame. So the market notice is applying
  • 01:35:33
    at this stage. In the future, it will
  • 01:35:38
    not matter if it's coming in into here.
  • 01:35:40
    So once this rule goes in, any load
  • 01:35:42
    that's greater than 75 and we're doing away
  • 01:35:44
    with the 20 megawatt criteria for the collocated,
  • 01:35:47
    so we're just making it the same for
  • 01:35:48
    both. They will always go through the large
  • 01:35:52
    load interconnection process. It doesn't matter, how far
  • 01:35:57
    out, in time. That just gives us one
  • 01:36:00
    simple process to deal with these larger loads
  • 01:36:02
    that are more impacting, and, we ultimately decided
  • 01:36:05
    that was the best approach. So there will
  • 01:36:07
    be a change once this goes in. But
  • 01:36:10
    currently, with the market notice, a load that
  • 01:36:13
    is four years out, does not have to
  • 01:36:16
    go through this process, as long as it's
  • 01:36:19
    been through a planning study. Thanks for that
  • 01:36:24
    clarification, Hugo. Did that answer your question, Kenneth?
  • 01:36:32
    So I I guess you're saying if that
  • 01:36:34
    load happened to be in the planning cases
  • 01:36:37
    last year, then we can show that it's
  • 01:36:41
    already been in the planning case, and so
  • 01:36:43
    it doesn't it wouldn't be considered a new
  • 01:36:46
    load in this process? Yeah. That's correct. That's
  • 01:36:51
    kind of the way we're handling it if
  • 01:36:52
    it's the one that doesn't have to go
  • 01:36:54
    through it. Now there are some TSPs that
  • 01:36:56
    have chosen to go ahead and put some
  • 01:36:58
    of those loads that are further out through
  • 01:37:00
    this process, so they're covered either way. So
  • 01:37:03
    we've seen, you know, some, but it'll have
  • 01:37:06
    to be a case by case basis for
  • 01:37:07
    those kind of scenarios. But I'll really in
  • 01:37:10
    those scenarios, we're gonna try to do is
  • 01:37:12
    make sure that if you had a existing
  • 01:37:15
    load and it didn't have to go through
  • 01:37:17
    because of the market notice, we'll have it
  • 01:37:20
    been studied. If it's been studied and now
  • 01:37:23
    I've got it, incorporated in some planning studies,
  • 01:37:25
    then it's gonna move forward. But going forward,
  • 01:37:28
    then all new requests will just run through
  • 01:37:30
    this process. That way, we have kind of
  • 01:37:33
    a uniform way to do this, and, we'll
  • 01:37:36
    be able to keep, things organized. But more
  • 01:37:40
    or less, I think your scenario, it sounds
  • 01:37:43
    like y'all have already got it covered in
  • 01:37:45
    some planning studies since it's been around for
  • 01:37:47
    a while. Understood. And then, these PGRRs and
  • 01:37:55
    NPRRs, the this is gonna be effective upon
  • 01:37:59
    approval, or is there any delay in implementation
  • 01:38:05
    of these? Has that been determined? So I
  • 01:38:08
    mean, after after this has been approved? So
  • 01:38:11
    more than likely, there's some system changes that
  • 01:38:13
    have to go on. We'll have to update
  • 01:38:15
    Rio because right now, we don't have this
  • 01:38:18
    on the Rio system. But the intention would
  • 01:38:20
    be that we will be moving it in.
  • 01:38:23
    So I'm not sure how long it'll take
  • 01:38:26
    to get those changes done. But I think
  • 01:38:29
    there will be a a little bit of
  • 01:38:30
    a window of time, to get this implemented.
  • 01:38:33
    We do plan on filing some comments because
  • 01:38:35
    there's some, dates in the the protocol revisions
  • 01:38:40
    that we'll need to amend. But we wanted
  • 01:38:43
    to see this move further before we start
  • 01:38:45
    addressing those dates because, you know, we've been
  • 01:38:48
    working on this for quite some time, so
  • 01:38:49
    I don't wanna go out there and just
  • 01:38:51
    keep updating dates and, comments. So once this
  • 01:38:54
    gets closer to TAC, then we'll probably file
  • 01:38:57
    some comments and adjust any dates there in
  • 01:38:59
    the, figure to be aligned with when we
  • 01:39:04
    would implement it. The earliest we could do
  • 01:39:07
    that would be thirty days after its approval.
  • 01:39:11
    Okay. Thanks, Bill. Mhmm. Let's Hey. I'm sorry,
  • 01:39:15
    Katie. I have one more quick question for
  • 01:39:17
    Bill. There is a visual flowchart that was
  • 01:39:22
    created two or three years ago at the
  • 01:39:24
    large load task force. Is there a plan
  • 01:39:26
    on updating that visual flowchart for this to
  • 01:39:30
    capture all the elements of this new process?
  • 01:39:36
    Yeah, Kent. What I really intend on doing
  • 01:39:39
    we already have a interconnection handbook, which goes
  • 01:39:42
    into a lot more detail for people that
  • 01:39:44
    are trying to get generators interconnected. So if
  • 01:39:46
    we can get these rules approved, then I
  • 01:39:49
    can start working on updating our interconnection handbook
  • 01:39:52
    with, you know, how we do things according
  • 01:39:55
    to this new rule. So we will probably
  • 01:39:58
    be updating a lot of information and putting
  • 01:40:00
    it into the interconnection handbook so that new
  • 01:40:02
    large loads will be able to go out
  • 01:40:04
    there and look at that process and understand
  • 01:40:06
    it. So that's our intention. Okay. That makes
  • 01:40:12
    sense. Thank you, Katie. Okay. Thank you. Let's
  • 01:40:17
    go back to Chris, and then we'll try
  • 01:40:19
    to wrap up the queue. Yeah. I think
  • 01:40:25
    my only comment on this is it seems
  • 01:40:27
    our ERCOT, like, Bill, based on your your
  • 01:40:29
    commentary, you already feel you have the ability
  • 01:40:33
    to limit the interconnection sizes based on a
  • 01:40:37
    concern of reliability. And so the codification of
  • 01:40:40
    of the gigawatt for me is is hard
  • 01:40:44
    to take when it seems that you already
  • 01:40:49
    feel enabled to do this. But let's see
  • 01:40:51
    the final comment on when I got it.
  • 01:40:57
    Okay. Thank you for that. Let let's go
  • 01:41:01
    on to David Blankenship. Yes. Hi. This is
  • 01:41:06
    David Blankenship. Can you hear me? Hello? We
  • 01:41:12
    can. Go. Oh, okay. Great. I just wanted
  • 01:41:16
    to second Martha's recommendation to move the, CenterPoint
  • 01:41:19
    comments along for a vote even as part
  • 01:41:22
    of the combo ballot or if need be,
  • 01:41:24
    its own standalone ballot for people who feel
  • 01:41:27
    a conflict of voting interest. But I also
  • 01:41:29
    wanted to ask a quick question of Bill
  • 01:41:33
    Blevins. I thought I heard earlier, you state
  • 01:41:37
    that you were willing to come back to
  • 01:41:38
    the table with different entities to continue discussing
  • 01:41:41
    some of the finer points, and word changes
  • 01:41:44
    on, PGRR115. Did I did I hear that
  • 01:41:47
    correctly? Yeah. I actually have a call with,
  • 01:41:52
    the TSP that's kinda been standing for last
  • 01:41:55
    couple of years just to try to help
  • 01:41:56
    us work on some of this, and, we'll
  • 01:41:59
    be taking up some of those issues. Kind
  • 01:42:02
    of the biggest one is, the stability study
  • 01:42:05
    and if there's a way that we can
  • 01:42:07
    screen that out and, maybe not have to
  • 01:42:10
    do one, if it's, reliable to do so.
  • 01:42:14
    So we wanna work with, the utilities on,
  • 01:42:17
    coming up with, whether or not we can
  • 01:42:21
    bypass having to do those studies in some
  • 01:42:23
    cases. And, so I will commit that, we'll
  • 01:42:27
    be sending these people to DWG to work
  • 01:42:29
    with, the TSPs to see if there's a
  • 01:42:31
    way that we can reduce the number of
  • 01:42:32
    studies that we have to do, and mainly
  • 01:42:36
    to focus on this, dynamics, study. Perfect. Yeah.
  • 01:42:41
    We have a a few people in our,
  • 01:42:43
    at CenterPoint that, that fill that still have
  • 01:42:46
    some lingering concerns, and it would be a
  • 01:42:47
    great opportunity for them to be able to
  • 01:42:49
    express those and and be heard. So I
  • 01:42:52
    appreciate you being willing to come back, and
  • 01:42:54
    we really don't wanna hold this up. We
  • 01:42:55
    know how important this is for you. Thank
  • 01:42:59
    you. Thanks, David. Okay. Floyd's got the last,
  • 01:43:05
    comment in the queue, and then we're gonna
  • 01:43:07
    see where we can go from here. Yeah.
  • 01:43:10
    Thanks. I'm agreeable to, the group moving on
  • 01:43:16
    with the with the figure, provided that we
  • 01:43:20
    get a second chance at the at that
  • 01:43:23
    paragraph number seven, once we get the IA
  • 01:43:27
    back. I assume that will also come to
  • 01:43:30
    ROS, or where will it go at that
  • 01:43:35
    point? I think we we need to be
  • 01:43:40
    assured of that that, when this comes before
  • 01:43:43
    PRS, that that is the intention. Okay. So
  • 01:43:48
    I already heard Martha make that commitment on
  • 01:43:52
    the mic to work with you on the
  • 01:43:54
    language. So I think I think we have
  • 01:43:58
    that there. Yes. It will come back to
  • 01:44:00
    us for the, IA. Sunwook, did you have
  • 01:44:05
    a comment? I I have a comment one
  • 01:44:14
    comments on the, can you hear me? Yes.
  • 01:44:18
    Go ahead. Okay. So I have one comment
  • 01:44:21
    on the center point one, but I I
  • 01:44:23
    think if if you guys are, you know,
  • 01:44:26
    discussing something, or else can you you can
  • 01:44:30
    go ahead, but I can come back later
  • 01:44:31
    with the center point comments. Well, we we
  • 01:44:36
    wanna try to, wrap this up, and we've
  • 01:44:39
    got a Okay. We've got a motion in
  • 01:44:41
    a second or see if we can add
  • 01:44:42
    a good combo. So why don't you, help
  • 01:44:45
    us tie a bow on it? Okay. Alright.
  • 01:44:50
    So so can you scroll down to nine
  • 01:44:55
    three four three section? Hang on. Do you
  • 01:45:01
    wanna see CenterPoint's comments? Because I think these
  • 01:45:05
    are, I think these are the are these
  • 01:45:08
    the these the TLWG comments? What do we
  • 01:45:11
    have on the screen, Erin? Katie, you should
  • 01:45:15
    be seeing the center point comments. Okay. Perfect.
  • 01:45:18
    Okay. Just confirming. K. Dunwood, did you say
  • 01:45:35
    9343? Yes. There is a yeah. Yeah. 9343,
  • 01:45:44
    paragraph three. Yeah. There is a yeah. There
  • 01:45:48
    is a lot last sentence that we added
  • 01:45:50
    by CenterPoint. The ERCOT, in collaboration with TSP,
  • 01:45:56
    should determine the stability analysis to be performed.
  • 01:46:00
    So, I you know, I tried to make
  • 01:46:06
    a request to remove that portion from that
  • 01:46:09
    section, because, it fits better in section 3.3
  • 01:46:16
    nine point three point two, which covers the,
  • 01:46:20
    you know, study scoping process. And I believe
  • 01:46:25
    CenterPoint has already, proposed the same edits in
  • 01:46:30
    that, you know, section nine three two, the
  • 01:46:33
    scoping process. So keeping that in that, section
  • 01:46:38
    nine three four three is not really necessary.
  • 01:46:44
    And I believe you know? Yeah. So section
  • 01:46:47
    3.2932 has already that wording. So, I think
  • 01:46:52
    it's, it fits better in that, you know,
  • 01:46:55
    location. Okay. Wanted to give Jim a chance
  • 01:46:58
    to respond. Sorry, Jay. I was trying to
  • 01:47:10
    get off mute. Luke, are you saying, to
  • 01:47:15
    strike it from 9343 and then basically because
  • 01:47:18
    it already stated a nine two three paragraph
  • 01:47:22
    two? Correct. And I don't see that same
  • 01:47:26
    edits in other study section either. So the
  • 01:47:30
    best place is to have that, edits in
  • 01:47:33
    the, nine three two. You already have it,
  • 01:47:36
    I guess. And let me just double check
  • 01:47:40
    that. Nine three two paragraph two. There is
  • 01:47:46
    two places. Nine three two paragraph two, and
  • 01:47:50
    there is one more, in paragraph eight, I
  • 01:48:00
    believe. Give me give me two seconds. Someone
  • 01:48:29
    will let me look. Okay. Yeah. I I
  • 01:49:18
    think that I think that's acceptable. I see
  • 01:49:21
    it in nine two three, And also in
  • 01:49:28
    that paragraph, later on down, I just just
  • 01:49:35
    in just in the spirit of compromise and
  • 01:49:40
    collaboration, you know, we can we can strike
  • 01:49:45
    that, as, yeah, as you as you suggested.
  • 01:49:54
    I think, Clayton, you're, in the chat, your
  • 01:49:57
    reference is actually 923 paragraph two. Alright. So
  • 01:50:07
    this is Bill. I'm gonna jump in here.
  • 01:50:10
    I think we're in agreement with the spirit
  • 01:50:14
    of the CenterPoint comments. I think the collaboration
  • 01:50:18
    part that they added is the based on
  • 01:50:22
    really the intent of the standard, that we're
  • 01:50:25
    trying to meet. It does require us to
  • 01:50:27
    collaborate with all the TSPs. So I guess
  • 01:50:31
    I would just wanna say, I'm I'm fine
  • 01:50:32
    with the CenterPoint comments. If we need to
  • 01:50:34
    make some tweaks because, basically, this would be
  • 01:50:37
    a cleanup item, that's fine. But the intent
  • 01:50:40
    is that, we want this to be a
  • 01:50:42
    collaborative process. So I I I generally agree
  • 01:50:45
    with their insertion. Okay. Thanks, Bill. Yeah. And
  • 01:50:50
    and Katie, I think I would prefer, just
  • 01:50:53
    to keep everything clean. I mean, I I'm
  • 01:50:55
    willing to to think about that, but, I
  • 01:50:59
    mean, we've gotten all the all the way
  • 01:51:01
    down to this end of the road. You
  • 01:51:06
    know, I I would like to stick with
  • 01:51:08
    Martha and and and David's motion. Okay. Alright.
  • 01:51:16
    I'll I'll respect that. And that takes us
  • 01:51:19
    to the end of the queue. So, I
  • 01:51:22
    mean, if we could add this to the
  • 01:51:24
    combo ballot, that would be wonderful. If not,
  • 01:51:27
    obviously, you guys have heard that we've got
  • 01:51:29
    a we could have a motion in a
  • 01:51:31
    second. So anyone opposed to adding this to
  • 01:51:35
    the the combo ballot? Okay. So we would
  • 01:51:43
    be adding this with the center point comment.
  • 01:51:48
    K. So the last sentence will be removed
  • 01:51:51
    or it will be kept. Same. Center point.
  • 01:51:54
    I like I like to I like to
  • 01:51:56
    keep that similar. So so, again, the combo
  • 01:52:00
    ballot would be, with CenterPoint's comments. No desktop
  • 01:52:05
    edits from ROS. Thank you, Katie. That's correct.
  • 01:52:12
    Thanks, Jim. Okay. Erin, can you do your
  • 01:52:15
    magic for us? Sure, Katie. I I just
  • 01:52:20
    wanted to, get some clarification because it sounded
  • 01:52:25
    like to me that we did have a
  • 01:52:26
    formal motion in second, for PGRR115.
  • 01:52:32
    So we would need to withdraw that, and
  • 01:52:34
    then we can add that to the combo
  • 01:52:37
    ballot. Is that that was my understanding. Okay.
  • 01:52:41
    Martha's Yeah. Popped in the queue. So I
  • 01:52:45
    did not I'm sorry, Katie. Go ahead. No.
  • 01:52:48
    Go ahead. I did not actually make a
  • 01:52:50
    formal motion. Just to clarify, I suggested the
  • 01:52:53
    center point comments go on the combo ballot.
  • 01:52:55
    And if that is not possible, then I
  • 01:52:58
    will make a motion, and then David Blankenship
  • 01:53:01
    said he would second. Thanks. Okay. That's the
  • 01:53:04
    way I took it. For clarifying. Yeah. That's
  • 01:53:07
    the way I took it. It was they
  • 01:53:09
    were they were in reserve for us. So
  • 01:53:12
    alright. Yeah. I don't I I've get corrected.
  • 01:53:17
    This is Cyrus. I was confused about all
  • 01:53:19
    that, so just ignore my comment. I was
  • 01:53:21
    just I was getting confused. Okay. But, I
  • 01:53:24
    mean, we're responding to you because we've got
  • 01:53:27
    it up here on the screen, what it
  • 01:53:28
    will look like. Okay. So it sounds like
  • 01:53:34
    we're all in agreement. What I was saying
  • 01:53:36
    is we're adopting the CenterPoint comments. No changes,
  • 01:53:41
    you know, through discussion today, so those would
  • 01:53:44
    remain intact. And then next month, we would
  • 01:53:48
    come back for IA review. Okay. So I'm
  • 01:53:52
    not seeing anyone else in the queue, so
  • 01:53:54
    I'm gonna let that stand. And then with
  • 01:54:02
    that, we can go back and, we have
  • 01:54:06
    PGRR119. And, Alex, I I did not forget
  • Item 14.2 - PGRR119 Additional Discussion
    01:54:09
    that you were in the queue on PGRR119.
  • 01:54:12
    So if you wanna state your comment comment
  • 01:54:15
    now, go ahead. Thank you, Katie. Yes. No
  • 01:54:20
    problem waiting. I was did not, intend to
  • 01:54:22
    jump ahead of PGRR115. On PGRR119, I think
  • 01:54:26
    this one is is pretty uncontroversial and maybe
  • 01:54:29
    ready for a vote. Maybe it's a combo
  • 01:54:31
    ballot item at PLWG, as Dylan
  • 01:54:35
    noted. There was consensus and no concerns and
  • 01:54:38
    ready to bring this back here to ROS.
  • 01:54:41
    The comments here that Erin is showing, the
  • 01:54:44
    joint comments from EDF Renewables, my company, Infinergy,
  • 01:54:47
    and Pattern Energy, added a sentence to kinda
  • 01:54:51
    clarify, respond to all folk's comments of, you know,
  • 01:54:55
    concerns, what is meant by reserve margin. We
  • 01:54:58
    had a a discussion around that, and adding
  • 01:55:03
    a little bit of clarification there. So I
  • 01:55:04
    don't think there's anything controversial. It is important,
  • 01:55:08
    for us to know if this is moving
  • 01:55:10
    forward or or if there are concerns or
  • 01:55:13
    further changes. But if it does impact our
  • 01:55:15
    October revisions, this is one of the pieces
  • 01:55:18
    that were was being asked for in October.
  • 01:55:20
    And this one is just a simple straightforward
  • 01:55:23
    memorization of what is that currently being done.
  • 01:55:26
    It is important to get it in the
  • 01:55:28
    planning guide because they didn't used to do
  • 01:55:31
    it this way. For for some time, planning
  • 01:55:35
    was using the posted GTC margins in studies,
  • 01:55:40
    which were different than what's actually used in
  • 01:55:42
    operation. So this they did make that change
  • 01:55:45
    in how they do the planning, and we
  • 01:55:47
    wanna memorialize that. And I think it would
  • 01:55:49
    be good to move this one forward. Thanks,
  • 01:55:56
    Alex. And I just saw Nava pop in
  • 01:55:58
    the queue. Did you have a response? Yeah.
  • 01:56:01
    I think, we filed a comment, sometime in
  • 01:56:05
    November, and we typically ask, if they have
  • 01:56:12
    a comment on that. So because, I mean,
  • 01:56:17
    this part of reliability margin from Oncor's side
  • 01:56:23
    is still undefined, and, that may have some
  • 01:56:28
    cost impact. So we didn't see anything they
  • 01:56:32
    posted, from our side. So if anyone from
  • 01:56:37
    our side can respond, that'll be great. Okay.
  • 01:56:44
    Ping. Go ahead. Yes. So, we did have
  • 01:56:48
    discussions about the OPEC, comments at one of
  • 01:56:53
    the POWG meetings last year. So ERCOT, even
  • 01:56:59
    though the reliability margin is not a defined
  • 01:57:02
    word, but, it is, we did try to
  • 01:57:06
    make it, clear that it is, consistent with
  • 01:57:12
    the operating procedures because in operating procedures, the
  • 01:57:16
    those limits were not enforced, by the studied
  • 01:57:20
    value. Instead, they were discounted in a way
  • 01:57:25
    to make sure that we can ensure system
  • 01:57:27
    stability, reliability. And, then the joint commenters, they
  • 01:57:33
    were try they tried to, address the OPEC
  • 01:57:37
    comment by add this sentence showing on the
  • 01:57:40
    screen to further clarify that. So in the
  • 01:57:44
    past, couple of, PLWG discussions, we or had
  • 01:57:50
    to feel like, the addition, addresses, the OPEC
  • 01:57:56
    comments and make it more clear about exactly
  • 01:58:01
    what this, what ERCOT practices is. So even
  • 01:58:06
    though ERCOT did not file comments to address
  • 01:58:10
    OPEC's comments, but we do felt like it
  • 01:58:13
    has already been discussed at PLWG. So it's
  • 01:58:19
    yeah. I think Alex also put something, in
  • 01:58:22
    the chat. So, that's where we landed. But
  • 01:58:27
    I would see, if, OPEC felt, this addressed
  • 01:58:31
    to their comments. So one final comment. So
  • 01:58:38
    we raised the cost impact part. Can you
  • 01:58:41
    address anything on that one? Sorry. Can you
  • 01:58:46
    see that again? I was not able to
  • 01:58:48
    catch it. I think we raised the cost
  • 01:58:51
    impact, part on our comment. Can you address
  • 01:58:56
    that, it does not talk anything about the
  • 01:59:01
    cost? Yeah. So for this one, this is
  • 01:59:09
    for this particular revision request, we're just trying
  • 01:59:12
    to codify what we are doing. So, Nava,
  • 01:59:16
    do you mind to talk a little bit
  • 01:59:18
    about, like, which cost? The cost about, how
  • 01:59:22
    this affect our studies or the cost about,
  • 01:59:26
    how it impact the staffing. So do you
  • 01:59:30
    want to, I think, I think, the the
  • 01:59:33
    reliability part. Right? So that may impact the
  • 01:59:36
    cost. Right? If you go through the more
  • 01:59:39
    reliability, right, more reliable grid or whatever, if
  • 01:59:42
    you add that that term reliable, that went
  • 01:59:45
    back to the cost, isn't it? So how
  • 01:59:47
    we address that? Yeah. So this is, so
  • 01:59:52
    we're trying to, align our practice with how
  • 01:59:55
    operations, at the operation time horizon, how everything
  • 02:00:01
    is enforced. So we are not going to,
  • 02:00:05
    introduce additional cost to the consumers because this
  • 02:00:09
    is the current practice in operations already. Okay,
  • 02:00:20
    Ping. I think that's helpful. So okay. So
  • 02:00:30
    what are we moving forward today? Are we
  • 02:00:44
    moving forward PGRR119 with OPEC's comments? Are we
  • 02:00:49
    moving it forward with what Alex showed us?
  • 02:00:53
    We just need to know how to proceed.
  • 02:00:55
    Yep. PLWG had consensus on the the last
  • 02:00:59
    filed comments, which was the joint commenters from
  • 02:01:02
    January 22, which includes that additional sentence showing
  • 02:01:06
    where that reserve margin that or cut staff
  • 02:01:09
    referred to in this first sentence, where that
  • 02:01:11
    comes from, that that is just coming from
  • 02:01:13
    what's actually happening in operations. There's no this
  • 02:01:17
    are just So The first thing that it
  • 02:01:20
    is important that the that the margins that
  • 02:01:22
    are reflected in the planning studies are consistent
  • 02:01:24
    with what is happening in the real world.
  • 02:01:27
    That's the that's the benefit that needs to
  • 02:01:30
    be measured. The posted limits that you see
  • 02:01:33
    when you read the GTCs, those are not
  • 02:01:35
    correct. And it's not it's not adding cost.
  • 02:01:39
    It's capturing the benefits correctly. But this is
  • 02:01:42
    the right thing to do. We can, you
  • 02:01:44
    know, nitpick about the specific words, but this
  • 02:01:46
    is the correct way for planning to look
  • 02:01:49
    at this issue when they're doing economic evaluation.
  • 02:01:54
    Okay, Alex. Nava, did you have a comment?
  • 02:01:58
    Yeah. So so if there is something we
  • 02:02:02
    we would like to comment, we'll file comment,
  • 02:02:06
    between now and TAC, but, I think, I
  • 02:02:10
    can I can vote yes for this moment?
  • 02:02:15
    Okay. So we can move forward then. I'm
  • 02:02:20
    if I'm understanding correctly, we can move forward
  • 02:02:22
    with the consensus language from PLWG. And then
  • 02:02:26
    if you wanna file something, between now and
  • 02:02:30
    when the IA comes back to us, then
  • 02:02:32
    you're free to do that. That's right. Yeah.
  • 02:02:36
    Okay. Okay. Alright. So okay. We're in agreement
  • 02:02:39
    on that. So with that, is anyone opposed
  • 02:02:42
    to adding this to the combo valid? Okay.
  • 02:02:48
    Erin, can you show us what that will
  • 02:02:50
    look like? Perfect. Okay. Alright. Moving on. Bill,
  • 02:03:12
    you had a question on tier PGRR115
  • 02:03:15
    PGRR122. Why don't you ask your
  • 02:03:17
    question before we leave the PLWG agenda? Okay.
  • 02:03:22
    Yeah. I don't know if we were gonna
  • 02:03:24
    talk about PGRR122 further, today,
  • 02:03:27
    but it it's more a procedural question. We
  • 02:03:30
    support the motion. We support moving PGRR115
  • 02:03:32
    forward today. The question, though, is just
  • 02:03:36
    reviewing some of the comments. I know Oncor
  • 02:03:40
    and then ERCOT, it looks to, incorporated some
  • 02:03:45
    parts of PGRR122 into PGRR115.
  • 02:03:48
    Does that mean we we don't need
  • 02:03:53
    PGRR122 anymore, or are there
  • 02:03:55
    still some remaining parts that need to stand
  • 02:04:00
    alone there? I just we're just trying to
  • 02:04:02
    figure out where things stand with the reliability
  • 02:04:05
    requirements proposer. I mean, it sounded to me
  • 02:04:12
    like PGRR122 is still being
  • 02:04:16
    considered at PLWG, and then ERCOT's gonna be
  • 02:04:20
    filing some additional comments. Jeff, did I get
  • 02:04:23
    that right? Yeah. That that's right. And and
  • 02:04:27
    I think so so the distinction between PGRR115
  • 02:04:30
    and PGRR122 is PGRR115
  • 02:04:32
    covers, if you have a, like, a large
  • 02:04:38
    load or multiple large loads on, like, a
  • 02:04:40
    radial line, then the loss of that radial
  • 02:04:43
    line is gonna cause the loss of all
  • 02:04:44
    of them. PGRR122 is broader than
  • 02:04:49
    that. It it would cover if you had
  • 02:04:51
    a fault in a voltage depression in an
  • 02:04:53
    area and all of the loads in that
  • 02:04:55
    area were to trip. That that that's what
  • 02:04:58
    PGRR122 is intended to cover. So
  • 02:05:00
    it's a bit broader, And and it's a
  • 02:05:02
    little bit more complicated discussion. Yep. Thank you,
  • 02:05:06
    Jeff. Appreciate that. And we had we had
  • 02:05:11
    inquired about, one way to potentially remedy, a
  • 02:05:17
    violation under PGRR122 is to
  • 02:05:21
    have a collocated generation with a tripping scheme
  • 02:05:24
    that would take both the generator and load
  • 02:05:26
    off at the same time. Has ERCOT thought
  • 02:05:28
    more about that as a potential, alternative or
  • 02:05:33
    a way to mitigate, violation of that reliability
  • 02:05:37
    criteria, or is we better serve to save
  • 02:05:41
    that for another day when we focus more
  • 02:05:43
    on discussion on a PGRR122?
  • 02:05:45
    Yeah. I I yeah. I think probably better
  • 02:05:47
    save that for another discussion. Okay. Thanks, Jeff.
  • 02:05:50
    Appreciate the clarity. Yeah, Bill. I'd encourage you
  • 02:05:53
    to go to PLWG. I think Mina's gonna
  • 02:05:56
    be taken over from here, but try to,
  • 02:05:59
    get on the next agenda for PLWG. Okay.
  • 02:06:02
    Alright. That's gonna move us on to IBRWG.
  • 02:06:07
    Again, maybe things a little bit different today
  • 02:06:10
    on that one. Fred has a presentation for
  • 02:06:12
    us on NOGRR272 and PGRR121. And
  • 02:06:17
    then I wanna lay out some thoughts for
  • 02:06:21
    ROS to try to refocus this to see
  • 02:06:24
    if we can start making some decisions on
  • Item 15 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - IBRWG - IBRWG Leadership
    02:06:27
    some key points. So I'm gonna turn the
  • 02:06:29
    floor over to Fred first to to go
  • Item 15.1 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs - DWG - IBRWG - Possible Vote - Fred Huang
    02:06:32
    through his presentation. Hi. This is Fred. Just
  • 02:06:38
    double check again. Is my audio still okay?
  • 02:06:41
    Yeah. That's fair. Thank you. So, I was
  • 02:06:47
    just before I started, I think, let we
  • 02:06:52
    we we know the layer was, comments filed,
  • 02:06:55
    probably just yesterday. So, maybe, Katie, you'll touch
  • 02:06:59
    that one later. So, I will kinda hopefully
  • 02:07:02
    provide a pretty, concise and, also, comprehensive update
  • 02:07:07
    to the group. Next slide, please. Thank you.
  • 02:07:14
    So I I think at this presentation, like,
  • 02:07:18
    the and the, has been referred to IBRWG
  • 02:07:22
    and DWG, and, we work with those two
  • 02:07:26
    working groups, on on this one. And, and
  • 02:07:30
    then we can recommend it, as, in the
  • 02:07:33
    previous IBRWG, in January, among a lot of
  • 02:07:38
    discussions. Maybe it's good for us to provide
  • 02:07:40
    a kind of a summary and update, to
  • 02:07:43
    our today. Instead of go through all the
  • 02:07:48
    proposal, really kind of try to focus on,
  • 02:07:51
    why we propose this one and what's anticipated
  • 02:07:54
    impact or benefit, to the upgrade. So this
  • 02:07:58
    slide is really provide a quick summary in
  • 02:08:00
    case, if if members are, not familiar with
  • 02:08:04
    it, would like to know in more details.
  • 02:08:06
    I can put in here, just for the
  • 02:08:09
    all the previous discussions and update that we
  • 02:08:12
    present to the, working groups. Next slide, please.
  • 02:08:20
    So I think this, some of you may
  • 02:08:22
    see this slide several times, but but I
  • 02:08:24
    think it is good, always to highlight it.
  • 02:08:27
    Is one of the largest grid in the
  • 02:08:29
    world right now, not only The US, especially
  • 02:08:32
    focus on a higher, high penetration. We set
  • 02:08:36
    up the highest record in 2024, the instantaneous
  • 02:08:40
    penetration of inverter based resource in ERCOT
  • 02:08:43
    in real time. We reached to 75%. I
  • 02:08:47
    think, then you look at the queue and
  • 02:08:49
    the kind of the table on the lower
  • 02:08:51
    right is really kinda show a a high
  • 02:08:54
    level, over the last, ten, fifteen years how
  • 02:08:59
    the inverter based resource in terms of wind,
  • 02:09:02
    solar, and the storage, for their growth and
  • 02:09:05
    kinda up to 2024 and moving forward. So
  • 02:09:10
    the number here for the up to 2024,
  • 02:09:12
    they are actually, physically connected our transmission grid.
  • 02:09:17
    And, after 2024 is really based on the
  • 02:09:20
    information is also I put a link here
  • 02:09:24
    is the capacity. They already have a signed
  • 02:09:27
    in the commission agreement with the financial security.
  • 02:09:32
    So in other words, the likelihood for these
  • 02:09:34
    new projects to connect to ERCOT transmission, is
  • 02:09:39
    higher than the other early stage, new plant
  • 02:09:42
    projects. So, really, as of 2024, we have
  • 02:09:48
    approximately 40 gigawatt wind, 30 gigawatt solar, and
  • 02:09:53
    the 10 gigawatt energy storage connected already. And,
  • 02:09:57
    look at the future, we expect to have,
  • 02:10:01
    according to the queue, additional 12 gigawatt wind,
  • 02:10:05
    30 gigawatt solar, and 18 gigawatt energy storage
  • 02:10:09
    that can connect to our transmission grid in
  • 02:10:12
    the next three to five years. So you
  • 02:10:15
    really get a total reach to one thirty
  • 02:10:17
    gigawatt. And similarly, I think, as one of
  • 02:10:21
    the presentation, made it to, 2024 technology and
  • 02:10:27
    security committee, I think one of the industrial
  • 02:10:30
    experts from the national lab kind of highlighted,
  • 02:10:33
    in order to, I would say, continue accommodate,
  • 02:10:38
    further inverter based growth to a greater for
  • 02:10:42
    reliability and stability, I think options such as
  • 02:10:46
    free forming technology can be provided by inverter
  • 02:10:50
    based resource. It is one of the key
  • 02:10:52
    features, to enable that kind of further growth
  • 02:10:55
    reliably and stable. So next slide, please. So
  • 02:11:04
    the the slides here, just try to summarize
  • 02:11:07
    is up to now for region. And, again,
  • 02:11:12
    I want, as always, thanks to the stakeholder
  • 02:11:15
    support and the title work with us to
  • 02:11:18
    accommodate the 80 gigawatt inverter based resource already
  • 02:11:22
    connected to ERCOT transmission grid today. We have
  • 02:11:27
    several options has been adopted, considered just to
  • 02:11:30
    support our integration. These are kind of, probably
  • 02:11:34
    the more notable items trying to share with
  • 02:11:36
    the group. The first one is the the
  • 02:11:39
    synchronous condensers. So the inverters based resource interconnection
  • 02:11:46
    require certain, say, sufficient amount of system strength,
  • 02:11:50
    sufficient amount of system, to have your support
  • 02:11:53
    to be provided from the single machine, and
  • 02:11:56
    and the continue will be. So for the
  • 02:11:59
    region, we see a challenge, then we kinda
  • 02:12:02
    have a a double single condensers option to
  • 02:12:06
    provide the necessary support for the area. And
  • 02:12:10
    then the second one is to continue to
  • 02:12:12
    try to, along with the advancement of the
  • 02:12:16
    inverter based technology itself, they are capable and
  • 02:12:20
    can provide a better reliability support. So we
  • 02:12:23
    in a process to adopt it a triple
  • 02:12:25
    e PGRR122 thousand PGRR122, standard
  • 02:12:28
    requirement. The third one, obviously, along with all
  • 02:12:33
    the integrations, how to do a accurate and
  • 02:12:37
    assessment, identify the accurate limit we need to
  • 02:12:41
    maintain and enforce in real time. So have
  • 02:12:44
    how have a process to validate and verify
  • 02:12:47
    that the models we use to do all
  • 02:12:50
    those assessment is critical. So we make several
  • 02:12:53
    iterations to improve that process. And the last
  • 02:12:57
    one, as Chuck can reported in the beginning,
  • 02:13:00
    today in terms of the, enforcement of the
  • 02:13:03
    stability constraints, the GTC, although it's it's it's
  • 02:13:08
    a a tool we used, to maintain a
  • 02:13:11
    stable operation in real time. It does have
  • 02:13:15
    an impact, under the challenge condition. We do
  • 02:13:18
    need to, consider options to maintain, stable operation,
  • 02:13:23
    including, curtailment if necessary. So these are the
  • 02:13:29
    one already considered just, again, to to accommodate
  • 02:13:33
    the connected 80 gigawatt. So continue to further
  • 02:13:38
    integrate the inverter based resource, to to a
  • 02:13:42
    grid. I think it our our focus is
  • 02:13:45
    really, what are the other options, can help
  • 02:13:50
    us, not only ERCOT, our system operators, but
  • 02:13:54
    really the whole whole region in ERCOT, including
  • 02:13:57
    the transmission company and resource entity developers. How
  • 02:14:01
    can we continue to integrate this inverter based
  • 02:14:04
    resource further and reliably? So next slide, please.
  • 02:14:13
    So this slide kind of try try to
  • 02:14:16
    highlight it, why we, consider those adoptions that
  • 02:14:20
    are present in the previous slide. Along with
  • 02:14:24
    the growth of the up to 80 gigawatt
  • 02:14:26
    today, we certainly noted, challenges, particularly stability challenges,
  • 02:14:32
    in ERCOT region, when we integrated this inverter
  • 02:14:36
    based resource. The first one is the speed
  • 02:14:39
    constraint. I probably go a little bit, in
  • 02:14:43
    each sub bullet. The the challenge we have
  • 02:14:49
    observed and continue to increase is we start
  • 02:14:53
    to see, more increasing stability issues identified in
  • 02:14:58
    the in the connection process for the new
  • 02:15:01
    inverter based resource. And that is not unique
  • 02:15:04
    to any, inverter based resource. It it can
  • 02:15:07
    be seen in wind. It can be seen
  • 02:15:09
    in solar and, also, energy storage. So, as
  • 02:15:14
    the developer and the subject matter experts here,
  • 02:15:18
    you kind of expect Once you see the
  • 02:15:20
    challenges, you go you start to have a
  • 02:15:23
    iteration of the vendor OEM to see how
  • 02:15:25
    to mitigate it. So that's what they put
  • 02:15:28
    additional burden, for the interconnection process at least
  • 02:15:32
    for the new generation. I think the most
  • 02:15:35
    another challenge we start to see in recent
  • 02:15:38
    years is a lower GTC is a viable
  • 02:15:41
    option to make it to the stability in
  • 02:15:44
    real time by constrained output or I maintain
  • 02:15:48
    a certain amount of flow to maintain stability.
  • 02:15:53
    We start to note it under some very
  • 02:15:56
    extreme scenario in the area the new project
  • 02:16:00
    connect to. Curtailment may no longer be sufficient.
  • 02:16:05
    In other words, we we may have a
  • 02:16:09
    situation where we could no longer, I would
  • 02:16:13
    say, connect any further MBA to the electrical
  • 02:16:19
    grid until they are, solution or mitigation to
  • 02:16:24
    man manage the stability. So, obviously, the all
  • 02:16:29
    this kind of combined, the outcome is, the
  • 02:16:33
    most speed constraint we have, it it will
  • 02:16:35
    reduce the utilization of the transmission grid, and,
  • 02:16:39
    it certainly will increase the GTC constraints we
  • 02:16:42
    need to maintain in real time. So give
  • 02:16:44
    a contact, in 2014, we have four GTC
  • 02:16:48
    we need to maintain in real time. As
  • 02:16:50
    of today, we have more than 20, close
  • 02:16:52
    to 25 already. And those GTC start to
  • 02:16:56
    become more com complicated and, more difficult to
  • 02:16:59
    identify and maintain. The second one is the
  • 02:17:04
    event impact. I think the notable Odesa, one
  • 02:17:07
    or and Odesa two event has been widely
  • 02:17:11
    discussed in the last several years. It it
  • 02:17:14
    just show a a physical evidence where our
  • 02:17:16
    system become more sensitive and more volatile, just
  • 02:17:21
    due to, obviously, the power system more for,
  • 02:17:26
    involved. And, which means when we have, similar
  • 02:17:30
    event, it could start to affect even increasing
  • 02:17:34
    number of inverter based resource or even other
  • 02:17:37
    resources such as, and the load as well.
  • 02:17:40
    So we try to, always identify a solution
  • 02:17:44
    or options. How can we reduce the impact,
  • 02:17:47
    when we have a disturbance? The last one,
  • 02:17:50
    as I point out, is, a lot of
  • 02:17:53
    assessment to identify limits subject to the the
  • 02:17:57
    tools and models. And, we start to note
  • 02:18:01
    it as well once we have a high
  • 02:18:02
    penetration of inverter based resource, the system become
  • 02:18:06
    more sensitive where the model and the tool
  • 02:18:09
    may start to hit its limitation. And then
  • 02:18:12
    we may need to go into more granular
  • 02:18:15
    assessment and the more detailed models that could,
  • 02:18:19
    extensively increase the burden of every entity, including
  • 02:18:23
    the timeline to do that assessment from the
  • 02:18:26
    training all the way to operations. So we
  • 02:18:29
    also want to find a way and options
  • 02:18:32
    how we can continue maintain our confidence, for
  • 02:18:36
    the tool we are using right now to
  • 02:18:38
    provide a timely support and assessment. So all
  • 02:18:41
    these, I think, the the real cause of
  • 02:18:44
    this one is really the low system strength
  • 02:18:47
    is kind of, emerging radar grid issues, along
  • 02:18:51
    with the, current inverter based, integrations. Next slide,
  • 02:18:58
    please. So the slides here kind of kind
  • 02:19:03
    of, more like a content as a kind
  • 02:19:06
    of high level background. So what we try
  • 02:19:10
    to propose a screen for me is really
  • 02:19:13
    not very different, but similar to what we
  • 02:19:15
    try to, address the system needed in the
  • 02:19:19
    past several years. Such as, at early stage,
  • 02:19:23
    we have, worked with the stakeholders on the
  • 02:19:25
    voltage and the frequency spot back to 02/2008.
  • 02:19:29
    Have, inverter based resource provide, adequate and kind
  • 02:19:33
    of similar voltage frequency support as other resource
  • 02:19:36
    to support the grid. And, similarly, for the
  • 02:19:39
    ride through, it is the the one through
  • 02:19:42
    several iterations, just try to have a resource
  • 02:19:46
    provide a better support to the grid. And
  • 02:19:49
    I think this kind of how we go
  • 02:19:51
    in moving forward is we we see the
  • 02:19:53
    grid forming is, it is low. I would
  • 02:19:57
    say, ready available capability, the IBR in this
  • 02:20:03
    proposal is energy storage. They can provide the
  • 02:20:06
    the needed that we have here support to
  • 02:20:08
    the grid, maintain a stable, and to provide
  • 02:20:10
    a benefit to, all the parties. So I
  • 02:20:15
    think the the last one is on the
  • 02:20:18
    slides. It's kind of quickly high level. I
  • 02:20:21
    understand. This is not my intent to go
  • 02:20:23
    into the adoption. The focus is trying to
  • 02:20:26
    identify the I would say, summarize the benefit
  • 02:20:29
    and and the system need. But I just
  • 02:20:32
    kinda at a high level overview, there was
  • 02:20:35
    a a good summary, back to December IBRWG
  • 02:20:40
    about the kind of globally how the green
  • 02:20:43
    forming requirement versus incentive has been, considered or
  • 02:20:48
    adopted, in outside of the region, including the
  • 02:20:52
    MISO and, even, other countries. So I think
  • 02:20:56
    our proposal largely align with the the industrial
  • 02:21:01
    train, industrial train right now. Next slide, please.
  • 02:21:08
    So this would be my last slide, but
  • Item 15.2 - PGRR121, Related to NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs - DWG - IBRWG - Possible Vote - Fred Huang
    02:21:11
    I think that this kind of just
  • 02:21:12
    recap, what we propose here. I I think,
  • 02:21:17
    our proposed, at the base grid support for
  • 02:21:21
    energy storage requirement is, applied to the new
  • 02:21:25
    energy storages. We do not ask for retrofit.
  • 02:21:31
    So the con the concept is, when the
  • 02:21:37
    engine storage with this capability, they will provide
  • 02:21:41
    a support when resource have available capacity or
  • 02:21:45
    state of charge and are within its design
  • 02:21:48
    capability. No requirement to make sure the resource
  • 02:21:54
    need to maintain, certain amount of extra short
  • 02:21:58
    circuit current capability than it is required today.
  • 02:22:02
    No requirement to have the resource must maintain
  • 02:22:07
    available capacity all the time. So it in
  • 02:22:11
    a way, it's, minimized or no impact on
  • 02:22:15
    its commercial operation than it is today. So
  • 02:22:19
    how to, from the compliance or the performance
  • 02:22:24
    perspective, we recognize that this is, I would
  • 02:22:28
    say, it allows a new technology, but it's
  • 02:22:31
    considered mature technology at least for energy storage.
  • 02:22:34
    But at the initial proposal, as a concept,
  • 02:22:37
    what we propose is, how to make sure
  • 02:22:40
    how how to verify or check the performance,
  • 02:22:45
    it will through the proposal model quality and
  • 02:22:48
    the unit of validation test, which is very
  • 02:22:52
    similar to the existing process for the existing
  • 02:22:57
    inverter based resource. The actual performance requirement will
  • 02:23:01
    be the same as the existing IBR, so
  • 02:23:03
    there is no additional requirement on the performance
  • 02:23:06
    other than the existing ones. So, overall, I
  • 02:23:09
    think our proposal is try to have the
  • 02:23:11
    minimum requirement and the result, energy new energy
  • 02:23:16
    storage resource to provide additional hardware or energy
  • 02:23:19
    reserve and then no, no impact to the
  • 02:23:23
    to its commercial operations. I think the the
  • 02:23:26
    primary benefit is to provide grid with its
  • 02:23:32
    system strength improvement and the grid stability. So
  • 02:23:36
    I think it's kind of just highlighted. So
  • 02:23:39
    just because the existing inverter based resource, unlike
  • 02:23:43
    the traditional resource as a sequence machine, they
  • 02:23:46
    do not have, inertia. They do not have
  • 02:23:51
    the system trace contribution, because of its current,
  • 02:23:55
    especially software design. But with recent years software
  • 02:23:59
    advancements, it is possible and they can provide
  • 02:24:03
    it. So we recognize this kind of advertisement
  • 02:24:08
    of inverter based technologies. And at the same
  • 02:24:11
    time, we also recognize the potential impact of
  • 02:24:14
    the commercial operation. So this proposal should fit,
  • 02:24:18
    both that aspect. So this time, my high
  • 02:24:22
    my high level summaries. I'll be happy to
  • 02:24:24
    take any questions or comments. Thank you. Thank
  • 02:24:29
    you, Fred. Thank you so much for for
  • 02:24:31
    laying this out for us and bringing it
  • 02:24:35
    back to ROS's attention. I think that, you
  • 02:24:39
    know, taking from from your presentation and from
  • 02:24:42
    discussions with you, I think there's some key
  • 02:24:46
    points, some, you know, key directions that we
  • 02:24:49
    kinda need from from ROS. If it's not
  • 02:24:52
    this meeting, maybe we can bring it back
  • 02:24:54
    because I wanna get into the, joint comments
  • 02:24:57
    that were also filed, and I believe Kate
  • 02:24:59
    wants on the line to to help address
  • 02:25:01
    those as well. But, you know, the the
  • 02:25:04
    more substantive input is, you know, is this
  • 02:25:08
    the policy direction that we want to go?
  • 02:25:11
    Right? And if so, then we need the
  • 02:25:14
    resource entities to to work with our clients
  • 02:25:17
    to make sure the language works for them.
  • 02:25:21
    Bob, can you mute? Bob Bob Pelton? We
  • 02:25:24
    can we can hear you. Sorry. I didn't
  • 02:25:27
    hit that. I hit that wrong. Sorry. That's
  • 02:25:29
    okay. That's okay. That's okay. So, yep. So,
  • 02:25:33
    you know, if we if we if we're
  • 02:25:35
    continuing to go down this direction with the
  • 02:25:37
    two revision requests, then, you know, resource entities,
  • 02:25:41
    do you have the language that works for
  • 02:25:43
    you? So, you know, a couple of things,
  • 02:25:45
    you know, clarifying the language on performance, and
  • 02:25:50
    then, you know, Fred showed that slide on,
  • 02:25:55
    you know, whether it should be an incentive
  • 02:25:57
    or mandatory, you know, he he laid that
  • 02:26:00
    out in his presentation, but that kind of
  • 02:26:03
    feeds into the comments that we're getting from,
  • 02:26:06
    NG and Jupyter Power. So I'll get there
  • 02:26:09
    in just a second. And then, you know,
  • 02:26:13
    there's probably gonna be needs to be some
  • 02:26:14
    more specific language Oncor what some of the
  • 02:26:17
    compliance obligations are in in in real time.
  • 02:26:22
    And then also on the proposed effective date,
  • 02:26:26
    you know, looking at, you know, an SGI
  • 02:26:30
    date that's in the future and, you know,
  • 02:26:33
    it is in the future of when we
  • 02:26:35
    have, you know, final decision on these revision
  • 02:26:38
    requests. Do do I did I summarize that
  • 02:26:42
    accurately, Fred? Or was there another point that
  • 02:26:45
    that we needed some feedback on? No. Yeah.
  • 02:26:49
    I think thank you. Yeah. It's summary very
  • 02:26:51
    well. And I'll just say, among all the
  • 02:26:53
    items that you kinda highlighted, I think through
  • 02:26:57
    the IBRWG, the leadership layer and the the
  • 02:27:01
    the, I would say, the stakeholder discussions and
  • 02:27:03
    the DWG, similarly, I I think we are
  • 02:27:08
    comfortable to, expect to have to reach a
  • 02:27:12
    kind of agreement or adjustment for all the
  • 02:27:17
    technical related feedback, including, as you highlighted the
  • 02:27:23
    compliance or the the the performance. I I
  • 02:27:25
    think I kinda summarize on this on the
  • 02:27:28
    slides here right now already, and, we can,
  • 02:27:31
    I would say, start to prepare the revised
  • 02:27:34
    language just to better codify it and to
  • 02:27:36
    be more clear? I think we are, I
  • 02:27:40
    I feel comfortable we can reach to that
  • 02:27:42
    point. The the one, obviously, as you highlighted,
  • 02:27:45
    the adoption, that's something. And this is what
  • 02:27:48
    we propose. Is pay the expectation is, minimize
  • 02:27:53
    the impact and still provide VIP support to
  • 02:27:56
    the grid for, you know, the benefits to
  • 02:27:59
    everyone. Thank you. Let me let me circle
  • 02:28:10
    back to what you said about, you know,
  • 02:28:12
    coming up with coming up with revised language,
  • 02:28:15
    because I think it's gonna tie into, where
  • 02:28:19
    we keep this discussion and, that also ties
  • 02:28:23
    into the the joint comments. So, let me
  • 02:28:30
    let me just see if I can summarize
  • 02:28:31
    these and then, Caitlin or Bob would love
  • 02:28:35
    for you to to jump in. But I
  • 02:28:37
    think where they're coming from is, you know,
  • 02:28:40
    there's still a policy concern about, you know,
  • 02:28:43
    mandating that one subset of resources in ERCOT
  • 02:28:47
    be mandated to pay for a service. I
  • 02:28:50
    think that they are working on an NPRR
  • 02:28:54
    that would define performance standards, set out settlement
  • 02:28:57
    terms, and then provide a new standard contract
  • 02:29:00
    for a new type of service. So it
  • 02:29:03
    would be a contracted service, kind of like,
  • 02:29:07
    a block start service. And so they have
  • 02:29:12
    asked us to, keep the NOGRR and the
  • 02:29:16
    PGRR table here until that NPRR can be
  • 02:29:20
    filed. Did I miss anything, Caitlin? Was there
  • 02:29:25
    anything else you wanted to to highlight about
  • 02:29:27
    your comments? No. But I I do have
  • 02:29:34
    some kind of comments in my own words,
  • 02:29:36
    but I I can do that whenever you're
  • 02:29:38
    ready. Nope. It's for you. I didn't mean
  • 02:29:42
    to steal your thunder. I was just trying
  • 02:29:44
    to, put the high level. No. Okay. Well,
  • 02:29:48
    I I appreciate it, and, I wanna say
  • 02:29:51
    thank you to the IBRWG and to Fred.
  • 02:29:55
    You know, we've we've been having several discussions
  • 02:29:58
    to IBRWG and that it was my request
  • 02:30:01
    to sort of bring this back to ROS
  • 02:30:04
    and and my request to to Fred for
  • 02:30:06
    that presentation as well. I I don't think
  • 02:30:09
    we had consensus at IBRWG. I'll I'll let
  • 02:30:12
    Julia speak about that, but I I don't
  • 02:30:14
    know that we were driving towards that. So
  • 02:30:18
    that's why I requested this come to ROS
  • 02:30:21
    for sort of the the bigger policy discussion.
  • 02:30:25
    You know, we sort of talked about the
  • 02:30:26
    commercial and financial aspects, and then we're having,
  • 02:30:30
    you you know, various OEMs come through. But
  • 02:30:33
    but I don't know if we were doing
  • 02:30:35
    that to any end, IBRWG. And then I
  • 02:30:38
    wanted to make sure Fred came back to
  • 02:30:39
    this group as we reset and talked about,
  • 02:30:42
    you know, what ERCOT was seeing as far
  • 02:30:45
    as needs for this and, you know, if
  • 02:30:47
    and how they looked at any other alternatives.
  • 02:30:51
    I think our main policy concern is still
  • 02:30:53
    that it seems like we've identified this this
  • 02:30:57
    benefit that the added stability would bring to
  • 02:30:59
    the grid. But, you know, it seems like
  • 02:31:02
    maybe we we found that problem Maybe we
  • 02:31:05
    found the solution before that problem because the
  • 02:31:08
    solution that's being offered is one subset of
  • 02:31:11
    of generators or mandate to basically pay for
  • 02:31:15
    something that gives that benefit to the whole
  • 02:31:18
    grid and to other resources. So the the
  • 02:31:21
    ESR still have that policy concern. As Katie
  • 02:31:24
    said, we we are in process of a
  • 02:31:27
    NPRR that would lay that out as a
  • 02:31:30
    as a paid for service. Bob Hilton knows
  • 02:31:32
    more about that. So their request is really
  • 02:31:35
    that we table this until we have that
  • 02:31:38
    so we can look at sort of the
  • 02:31:39
    policy scope and have the decision points then.
  • 02:31:43
    I think, Katie, you did a good job
  • 02:31:45
    of them. And then, certainly, I think, you
  • 02:31:48
    know, going back to IBRWG at some point
  • 02:31:51
    might be good. And I I think I
  • 02:31:54
    think we should wait for those specific, you
  • 02:31:56
    know, language details until we have the pottery
  • 02:31:58
    policy consideration. I just wanna say, you know,
  • 02:32:01
    I think there's been some language out there
  • 02:32:03
    around, you know, may maybe this doesn't cost
  • 02:32:08
    very much. Maybe it's only software. And with
  • 02:32:12
    the the vagueness of the language that we
  • 02:32:15
    have right now, Jupyter has not been able
  • 02:32:18
    to confirm that with OEMs. Right? We we
  • 02:32:21
    don't know we haven't been able to confirm
  • 02:32:24
    with any of our OEMs. Like, yes. We
  • 02:32:26
    could do this. Yes. We couldn't. And then,
  • 02:32:28
    Katie, as you mentioned, it creates a performance
  • 02:32:32
    compliance obligation. And so I don't believe that
  • 02:32:37
    we would be able to go to ERCOT
  • 02:32:39
    and say, well, but you said we only
  • 02:32:42
    had to do software upgrades if we didn't
  • 02:32:44
    meet that performance obligation. And so those are
  • 02:32:48
    the language concerns I have with this, but
  • 02:32:50
    I do think we need to address those
  • 02:32:52
    policy concerns first. Okay, Caitlin. I I I
  • 02:32:58
    appreciate you laying all that out, and confirming
  • 02:33:01
    I'm at least on the right track and
  • 02:33:03
    trying to make my list. Let's move through
  • 02:33:07
    the queue. Michael Jewell, you're up next. Yes,
  • 02:33:11
    ma'am. Mic check. Can you hear me? Hello?
  • 02:33:18
    Yep. Go ahead. Thank you. So, first off,
  • 02:33:21
    Michael Jewell, on behalf of Plus Power, really
  • 02:33:24
    appreciate Fred's presentation. I think that this helps,
  • 02:33:29
    add some, additional clarity with regard to, to
  • 02:33:33
    our current perspective on this. I think, fundamentally,
  • 02:33:36
    you know, Plus Power agrees that that grid
  • 02:33:38
    forming can be a benefit to the reliability
  • 02:33:40
    of the grid and and really think that
  • 02:33:43
    it's important that, you know, with the growth
  • 02:33:45
    of IBRs, we're looking at more holistically about
  • 02:33:48
    how IBRs, can support the reliability reliable operations
  • 02:33:53
    of the grid. You know, very much, you
  • 02:33:58
    know, in support of the joint commenters, issues
  • 02:34:02
    and and the concerns that that Caitlin has
  • 02:34:04
    raised and, and the and what they're working
  • 02:34:07
    on with regard to that. We filed comments
  • 02:34:12
    back, on January 15 and really trying to
  • 02:34:16
    provide some specificity with regard to the cost
  • 02:34:19
    that are incurred to provide, this, grid support.
  • 02:34:25
    And I think that, you know, it it's
  • 02:34:28
    still unclear from ERCOT's perspective, and I think
  • 02:34:32
    Caitlin really kinda hit the nail on the
  • 02:34:34
    head. From a compliance perspective and what ERCOT
  • 02:34:37
    is looking for, you know, how does that
  • 02:34:40
    impact the cost that that we've identified and
  • 02:34:43
    Fluent's identified and the other OEMs all identified
  • 02:34:46
    that there is a cost to provide this.
  • 02:34:49
    And and I think we need to be,
  • 02:34:51
    you know, kind of synced up with regard
  • 02:34:53
    to, you know, is Oncor just looking for
  • 02:34:55
    a capability that happens to potentially be there,
  • 02:34:59
    or, you know, or more? And it it
  • 02:35:03
    I I hear both, answers in in Fred's
  • 02:35:07
    presentation. And so it's it's not that we
  • 02:35:11
    don't worry about ensuring reliable operations of the
  • 02:35:14
    grid. I think we just wanna be sure
  • 02:35:16
    that, folks know what is being required and
  • 02:35:23
    that this cost is getting compensated, and addressed
  • 02:35:29
    because of the larger benefits, to the grid.
  • 02:35:33
    The so, anyway, just, wanted to to be
  • 02:35:37
    sure that that did not get lost in
  • 02:35:39
    in the discussion. Thank you. No. That's that's
  • 02:35:42
    very helpful. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for
  • 02:35:44
    clarifying that. Shyam, you're next. Yeah. I haven't
  • 02:35:49
    followed this issue very closely, but I had
  • 02:35:50
    a question, I guess, for. You said that,
  • 02:35:53
    there's no requirement to maintain SOC, I think
  • 02:35:57
    in your that last bullet. So how does
  • 02:36:01
    it provide, like, synthetic inertia if it doesn't
  • 02:36:05
    have SOC? So, Katie, can I should I
  • 02:36:13
    go ahead to respond it? Sure, Fred. Go
  • 02:36:16
    ahead. K. Thank you. If you, Eric, can
  • 02:36:22
    you move to switch back to the slides?
  • 02:36:26
    So I think, Charles, I the the proposal
  • 02:36:30
    is, it may not be I'll try to
  • 02:36:35
    see if it's a good analogy or not.
  • 02:36:37
    But, essentially, what we ask for is when
  • 02:36:42
    you are capable and available, then you provide
  • 02:36:47
    a support. And the one thing I probably
  • 02:36:49
    miss it, I probably try to codify the,
  • 02:36:55
    the risk we support or you can really
  • 02:36:57
    simplify and say reforming support is not a
  • 02:37:00
    steady state all the time. The the really
  • 02:37:03
    benefit why this, technology provide the great support
  • 02:37:09
    and stability is transient, especially when you have
  • 02:37:13
    a voltage deviation or frequency deviation. That's where
  • 02:37:21
    you will inject the the system need during
  • 02:37:25
    the transient time, which is very short. After
  • 02:37:29
    it's just like a steady state, you will
  • 02:37:32
    not have any additional injection due to, which
  • 02:37:37
    is another way to say, in steady state,
  • 02:37:39
    the performance and the all the everything will
  • 02:37:41
    be just almost identical to grid following. But,
  • 02:37:44
    really, the benefit is doing that transient. And
  • 02:37:47
    what we propose here is, for your normal
  • 02:37:51
    operations, when you have that available capacity, then
  • 02:37:58
    you provide that support when you can. But
  • 02:38:02
    when you operate based on real time dispatch
  • 02:38:06
    or system condition, you are already at a
  • 02:38:09
    maximum capability, such as you already at a
  • 02:38:13
    PMOS plus you already at a QMOS. You
  • 02:38:16
    hit your inverter limitation, then you don't need
  • 02:38:21
    to provide a support. But the the condition
  • 02:38:27
    when the likelihood have all the ESR at
  • 02:38:31
    other stage is extremely low. And and so
  • 02:38:36
    this is what we are asking is we
  • 02:38:39
    we are not asking you must maintain state
  • 02:38:43
    of charge. You must maintain, online capacity, which
  • 02:38:47
    will affect your commercial operation dispatch. So only
  • 02:38:52
    do the support when you can. So the
  • 02:38:55
    analogy may be may be similar to the
  • 02:38:57
    governor response. If the generation resource happen to
  • 02:39:03
    be at a layer p max, then they
  • 02:39:05
    don't need they they are not capable to
  • 02:39:07
    provide a governor response for under frequency. But
  • 02:39:11
    when you are not at a p max,
  • 02:39:13
    then, the the the need is you provide
  • 02:39:17
    a better short term governor response to have
  • 02:39:21
    the frequency decay, when other resource kick in
  • 02:39:27
    to recover the frequency. So the need is
  • 02:39:29
    that short term. So, hopefully, this this one
  • 02:39:33
    kind of address your questions. Yes. No. That's
  • 02:39:36
    very helpful. Thank you. And, I guess, to
  • 02:39:38
    follow-up, you know, so I was thinking that
  • 02:39:41
    if, you know, sort of synthetic inertia was
  • 02:39:43
    the main, product you're looking for, that maybe
  • 02:39:47
    it's time to introduce an inertia ancillary service.
  • 02:39:51
    But it sounds from your description that that
  • 02:39:53
    might not be the primary service you're looking
  • 02:39:55
    for. Is that right? Or Yeah. And thank
  • 02:39:59
    you for for bringing this one up. So
  • 02:40:02
    I was kinda in one of my previous
  • 02:40:04
    slides. As you you point out, right, the
  • 02:40:08
    the Greenform ESR, they are capable to provide
  • 02:40:11
    the inertia support. To do the inertia support,
  • 02:40:15
    it it does require, to maintain sufficient capacity
  • 02:40:20
    or even energy, state of charge. So as
  • 02:40:25
    you know, ERCOT monitor and follow our system
  • 02:40:29
    inertia very, very closely. We have identified the
  • 02:40:33
    minimum inertia, and, we have procedure in the
  • 02:40:36
    control room to make sure we maintain the
  • 02:40:38
    the inertia level, not to reach the minimum
  • 02:40:40
    inertia. So up to now, we have not
  • 02:40:44
    hit a minimum inertia condition yet. And, with
  • 02:40:49
    the projected load growth, we we may not
  • 02:40:54
    even hit the the minimum inertia in the
  • 02:40:56
    near future. So a load is capable, but
  • 02:40:59
    it is not the primary request, for the
  • 02:41:03
    ES for our proposed, ESR. Okay. Thanks so
  • 02:41:09
    much. Thank you. Thanks, Fred. Okay. Bob Hilton.
  • 02:41:15
    Yeah. I just wanna say, Fred, thanks for
  • 02:41:17
    everything you guys are doing on identifying what
  • 02:41:20
    the grid needs. That's exactly what, you know,
  • 02:41:22
    the IBR working group and ROS should be
  • 02:41:25
    doing, is deciding what we need to maintain
  • 02:41:28
    reliability in the system. The reason that I'm,
  • 02:41:31
    you know, generating this protocol revision to look
  • 02:41:35
    at how you procure that reliability need is
  • 02:41:41
    bigger than ROS, and that's why I generated
  • 02:41:43
    it. You know, we're having some pretty good
  • 02:41:45
    discussions here. I think that the discussions on
  • 02:41:48
    what the reliability needs are are completely where
  • 02:41:52
    they need to be. However, I feel that
  • 02:41:55
    this is a bigger policy issue than than
  • 02:41:57
    ROS. It needs to be discussed in WMS
  • 02:42:00
    and other other venues also. And that's why
  • 02:42:04
    I've generated the NPRR because we're not gonna
  • 02:42:06
    have that discussion, in a bigger picture until
  • 02:42:10
    that is developed and out for debate. And
  • 02:42:14
    that was the whole reason behind doing this.
  • 02:42:16
    We've gotta have the debate. I don't the
  • 02:42:18
    debate can't be limited just to ROS and
  • 02:42:20
    the discussions we're having here. It needs to
  • 02:42:23
    be in the bigger picture. And that was
  • 02:42:25
    really the point of of writing that and
  • 02:42:28
    getting it out there. Thanks, Bob. So what's
  • 02:42:33
    the time frame on it? Actually, if I
  • 02:42:36
    could get with Corey next week, which I've
  • 02:42:39
    asked if he's available to kinda start doing
  • 02:42:42
    this finalization and getting it in the, the
  • 02:42:45
    right frame to file, it should be pretty
  • 02:42:48
    quick. Because it's I've already written everything that
  • 02:42:51
    needs to be changed. Granted, there's gonna be
  • 02:42:53
    a lot of work on it anytime you
  • 02:42:54
    do something like this this big. There would
  • 02:42:56
    be work that need to be done on
  • 02:42:57
    it. But it's taking, the requirements that they
  • 02:43:03
    put into the and and and and bigger
  • 02:43:07
    and and using that as the baseline for
  • 02:43:11
    performance that you can that's how you qualify
  • 02:43:15
    and how you perform and what you would
  • 02:43:16
    be contracting for. And and the other piece
  • 02:43:19
    about this, and, you know, we've talked about,
  • 02:43:22
    you know, there may be other needs in
  • 02:43:24
    the future. This would set up the ability
  • 02:43:28
    to where, say, the next contract period coming
  • 02:43:31
    up. ERCOT says, you know, we need x,
  • 02:43:34
    y, and z, reliability needs out there, and
  • 02:43:38
    they could put that into the requirements for
  • 02:43:41
    that ancillary service. And it's automatically upgraded. You
  • 02:43:44
    get people have got time to respond to
  • 02:43:45
    that for the next contract period, and then
  • 02:43:48
    they would offer those services in. So it
  • 02:43:50
    can change as time goes, moving forward rather
  • 02:43:55
    than just mandating changes as we move through
  • 02:43:58
    through the future. You know, and there's a
  • 02:44:01
    lot of comments, you know, I've seen in
  • 02:44:02
    the why it doesn't need to be at
  • 02:44:07
    ROS, in my mind anyway, for those kind
  • 02:44:10
    of discussions is all generators. I don't carry
  • 02:44:14
    your thermal IBR or whatever. There are some
  • 02:44:16
    services that you are providing that we're not
  • 02:44:18
    getting compensated for. Whether that's right or wrong,
  • 02:44:21
    I think a lot of that is wrong.
  • 02:44:23
    That's why the phase one of, Uri at
  • 02:44:25
    the commission, which hadn't been acted on, one
  • 02:44:28
    of the comments was to start to compensate
  • 02:44:30
    for voltage support. So there are these policy
  • 02:44:33
    conversations we need to have as reliability needs
  • 02:44:36
    on the system change, and that's what we're
  • 02:44:39
    trying to create here. Does that help? That
  • 02:44:43
    that helps, Bob. Thank you for that clarification.
  • 02:44:48
    Fred, I'll let you respond, and then I
  • 02:44:50
    wanna try to see where we can go
  • 02:44:52
    with this today. Go ahead, Fred. Yeah. Thank
  • 02:44:56
    you. Maybe we probably should wait to to,
  • 02:45:02
    have, like, a, NPRR. But I'm not probably,
  • 02:45:06
    if you can share, I'm just curious. From
  • 02:45:10
    the capability perspective, do you envision only the
  • 02:45:16
    IBR who participate at one will be capable
  • 02:45:24
    or the contract is you procure IBR to
  • 02:45:29
    be capable? So and all the others, they
  • 02:45:33
    are not required or not they don't need
  • 02:45:36
    to be capable. Right. It we would determine
  • 02:45:42
    the Katie, want me to go ahead and
  • 02:45:44
    answer that? Yeah. Go ahead, Bob. Yeah. Right
  • 02:45:51
    now, just the way I wrote it, it
  • 02:45:52
    was kinda based on the IBR stuff. But
  • 02:45:55
    there are other technologies, I believe, out there
  • 02:45:57
    that could provide some of this service, which
  • 02:46:00
    we could expand that to. So it wouldn't
  • 02:46:01
    just be IBR. But it would be only
  • 02:46:04
    those that that were selected for that service
  • 02:46:07
    that have to provide, that performance at those
  • 02:46:12
    levels. And, you know, we'll go through a
  • 02:46:14
    process. Well, I figured we'd get this debate
  • 02:46:17
    first before we decided how we would procure
  • 02:46:19
    and how much we would procure. Not how,
  • 02:46:22
    but how much we would procure and how
  • 02:46:24
    you would determine that. I know you've asked
  • 02:46:26
    us about that and kinda looking into that,
  • 02:46:28
    but we need to get past this first
  • 02:46:29
    stage first. But, yeah. That does does that
  • 02:46:33
    help, Fred, answer your question? Yeah. So your
  • 02:46:36
    proposal will have all those content to address
  • 02:46:42
    those questions. That that's what I'm hoping to
  • 02:46:45
    do. Like I said, there's gonna be a
  • 02:46:47
    lot of work we'll still have to do
  • 02:46:48
    with it if we do go down that
  • 02:46:49
    road, on some of those issues, but I
  • 02:46:52
    needed to get this out so we can
  • 02:46:53
    get the conversation going. Because I know you
  • 02:46:57
    wanna get this done sooner rather than later.
  • 02:46:59
    So Thank you. Okay. So, with that, I
  • 02:47:09
    think I I threw out some of the
  • 02:47:10
    policy decisions. Caitlin confirmed some of those. Bob
  • 02:47:15
    has something in flux here that sounds like
  • 02:47:18
    we would have before us by the next
  • 02:47:20
    ROS. Is everyone okay with tabling this here
  • 02:47:25
    at ROS at the ROS level, for another
  • 02:47:29
    month and coming back and discussing? Okay. I'm
  • 02:47:38
    not I'm not seeing anything, not suggesting that
  • 02:47:42
    that's appropriate. So let's let's table this. Fred,
  • 02:47:46
    your your presentation was immensely helpful, and and
  • 02:47:50
    all of your responses to everyone's questions were
  • 02:47:52
    very helpful. I think in the interest of
  • 02:47:55
    time yes, Julia. I'll I'll get to you
  • 02:47:58
    in just a second. I think in the
  • 02:47:59
    interest of time, anything else in Julia's, update,
  • 02:48:03
    I would just ask you to review on
  • 02:48:04
    your own. Julia, you have a comment. Yeah.
  • 02:48:11
    Can you hear me? We can. Go ahead.
  • 02:48:17
    Alright. Thanks, Katie. Yeah. I just had one
  • 02:48:20
    comment. So based on what Caitlin and Bob
  • 02:48:22
    said, it seems like it's kind of like
  • 02:48:24
    a little bit of chicken egg. Right? You
  • 02:48:26
    need to understand technical requirements to evaluate the
  • 02:48:31
    cost and and and and to feedback into
  • 02:48:34
    that NPRR. So with that, I was
  • 02:48:36
    just wondering if we could continue technical discussion
  • 02:48:40
    in IBRWG and, you know, ERCOT's taking
  • 02:48:43
    in comments, technical comments, making adjustment to NOGRR
  • 02:48:48
    and NOGRR, you know, and figure, I'm sorry,
  • 02:48:52
    language so that it can inform technical requirements,
  • 02:48:57
    and help, people draft that NPRR. I'm gonna
  • 02:49:03
    let Caitlin answer that. I I would request
  • 02:49:09
    that we table that in until we have
  • 02:49:12
    at least another discussion and and can see
  • 02:49:16
    the the NPRR. I think the NPRR will
  • 02:49:19
    be ready by next ROS. So I I'd
  • 02:49:22
    like to have one more at least one
  • 02:49:23
    more policy discussion before we go back to
  • 02:49:26
    to that because I think I I would
  • 02:49:31
    think that that needs some direction from from
  • 02:49:34
    ROS. I I think that that's what we
  • 02:49:36
    said in our joint comment tonight. I think
  • 02:49:38
    that's what Katie laid out, but but I
  • 02:49:41
    don't wanna speak for Katie. But I I
  • 02:49:42
    think you'd want some direction from ROS before
  • 02:49:45
    you go back to that review. Yeah. That
  • 02:49:51
    that was my expectation, Caitlin. So thank you
  • 02:49:53
    for, confirming that. Okay. So I think I
  • 02:49:57
    think that's it for okay. Chase, last word,
  • 02:50:01
    and then we're wrapping up this discussion. Chase,
  • 02:50:13
    if you're if you're speaking, we can't hear
  • 02:50:15
    you. Oh, I apologize. W. Muted. I've got
  • 02:50:20
    a quick question for, I think, Caitlin and
  • 02:50:24
    Bob and some other ESR owners who have
  • 02:50:26
    commented on the NOGRR. I understand kind of
  • 02:50:29
    the direction right now is to wait to
  • 02:50:31
    see this NPRR and have some of this
  • 02:50:33
    policy discussion. Is there any specific issues that
  • 02:50:41
    has have been identified as it relates to
  • 02:50:43
    the actual language in the NOGRR and what
  • 02:50:46
    it's requiring that, may need further clarification, as
  • 02:50:53
    far as what is being proposed to be
  • 02:50:55
    the requirement, or is part of this also
  • 02:50:59
    just depending on this high level policy conversation
  • 02:51:03
    can inform that as well. But I'm just
  • 02:51:06
    I recognize we wanna have this policy discussion,
  • 02:51:08
    but I'm also curious if the words on
  • 02:51:11
    the page and the NOGRR are clear enough
  • 02:51:15
    or if there are potential changes that are
  • 02:51:18
    needed there too and, you know, that maybe
  • 02:51:21
    that just needs to happen after the ROS's
  • 02:51:24
    discussion next month. Thanks. Can I can I
  • 02:51:27
    respond to Chase? Yes, please. Okay. K. Sorry.
  • 02:51:34
    I don't have specific examples, but I I
  • 02:51:37
    know that in the, you know, it it's
  • 02:51:42
    a very short amount and vague amount of
  • 02:51:45
    language. So my engineers and my OEMs have
  • 02:51:49
    not been able to determine from that language
  • 02:51:53
    what what it would take to meet that.
  • 02:51:55
    So that's sort of one. You know, I
  • 02:51:56
    I think the assertions I see are that
  • 02:51:59
    this is commercially available or it's not that
  • 02:52:01
    expensive. We have not been able to confirm
  • 02:52:04
    that with our OEMs. And then the second
  • 02:52:07
    part is what I raised. It it seems
  • 02:52:11
    to create a performance compliance requirement. And because
  • 02:52:16
    it is so short and vague, we in
  • 02:52:18
    in the operating guide revision request, we don't
  • 02:52:22
    know what would constitute actual compliance of that
  • 02:52:26
    in in real time. You know, same thing
  • 02:52:28
    we heard. Maybe this will only be software.
  • 02:52:31
    But if we have a performance issue, I
  • 02:52:34
    find it really hard to believe that I
  • 02:52:36
    would be able to go to the and
  • 02:52:38
    say, well, they said, you know, only do
  • 02:52:41
    it through software. I know we've had arguments
  • 02:52:43
    like that before in the past, so I
  • 02:52:44
    won't rehash it. And then, you know, Fred
  • 02:52:48
    talked about Odessa and and the model, and
  • 02:52:51
    we see this sort of exacerbating this that
  • 02:52:55
    because we are not fixing it because I
  • 02:52:57
    think what we've heard from OEMs is, oh,
  • 02:53:00
    the model show we can meet these requirements,
  • 02:53:03
    but we haven't really heard evidence of, you
  • 02:53:06
    know, commercial ability to actually, in performance, meet
  • 02:53:09
    the requirements. So so those are our concerns
  • 02:53:12
    as the language stands right now. Does that
  • 02:53:18
    help, Chase? Yes. Thank you, Caitlin and Katie.
  • 02:53:31
    Okay. Thanks, Chase. Alright. Fred. I I think
  • 02:53:37
    one thing, I should mention it. The model
  • 02:53:42
    quality test and unit validations, we have a
  • 02:53:45
    test requirement as a separate document. We are
  • 02:53:49
    in the process to, do the red line
  • 02:53:54
    DWG procedure manual. Essentially, it just align with
  • 02:53:56
    our existing, process as existing IBR. So maybe
  • 02:54:03
    the question is, our plan is present a
  • 02:54:07
    red line draft of DWG procedure manual for
  • 02:54:11
    the IBRWG and also DWG.
  • 02:54:16
    Because that has been as, as Carrie mentioned,
  • 02:54:20
    people when people look only look at the,
  • 02:54:22
    and, the and the PGRR, it is not
  • 02:54:26
    there because we refer you to the DW
  • 02:54:28
    procedure manual. So we will have a draft
  • 02:54:31
    ready for the next meeting. So just to
  • 02:54:35
    check with the the leadership and the Katie,
  • 02:54:38
    ERCOT we still go ahead to present that
  • 02:54:41
    one and discuss at the d IBRWG? Noted
  • 02:54:45
    that it's a draft. It's not a final.
  • 02:54:53
    I think we can discuss there, Fred, but
  • 02:54:56
    if there's anything from coming out of, the
  • 02:55:00
    ROS discussion that might require harmonization than just
  • 02:55:06
    knowing your willingness to take it back. I
  • 02:55:09
    understand. Yeah. But I but I I do
  • 02:55:11
    see the benefit because this one has been
  • 02:55:13
    asked by several even including OEMs. So I
  • 02:55:17
    I think it is good we at least,
  • 02:55:20
    continue a lot of effort at the DWG
  • 02:55:23
    and IBRWG and, focus on the technical part.
  • 02:55:27
    And, definitely agree, we will monitor and try
  • 02:55:30
    to, harmonize the direction, always would like us
  • 02:55:34
    to follow. Okay. Thanks, Fred. Thank you. Alright,
  • Item 16 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich
    02:55:46
    everyone. From there, we can go to the
  • 02:55:49
    combo ballot. We will start to lose people
  • 02:55:54
    during the lunch hour, so let's go ahead
  • 02:55:57
    and get through that if, Erin's ready to
  • 02:56:00
    pull that up on the screen. Okay, Erin.
  • 02:56:17
    Let me just slow down on this one,
  • 02:56:20
    make sure everybody's okay with what we've got
  • 02:56:22
    on here. So, we've got our meeting minutes
  • 02:56:26
    with revisions, working group leadership. And then,
  • 02:56:33
    1265 was the unregistered DG, and we're
  • 02:56:37
    sending that over to NDSWG. And then on
  • 02:56:41
    NPRR1229, we have that discussion and and figured
  • 02:56:44
    out that the way to word it is
  • 02:56:46
    that, the remaining issues were financial in in
  • 02:56:48
    nature. Nothing, that should be, coming back to
  • 02:56:54
    ROS. And then, December, we recommend approval of
  • 02:57:00
    that with ERCOT latest set of comments. And
  • 02:57:04
    the companion to that is PGRR115.
  • 02:57:07
    We had a pretty substantial discussion and agreed
  • 02:57:11
    to move forward with CenterPoint's comments that were
  • 02:57:14
    filed yesterday. And then for PGRR119,
  • 02:57:20
    we're proving that, after discussion with with joint
  • 02:57:24
    commenters comments. And that's what we're voting on
  • 02:57:28
    today. So is everyone still okay with every
  • 02:57:31
    item that appears on this combo ballot? Okay.
  • 02:57:41
    I'm not seeing any changes. Now I'll just
  • 02:57:43
    be looking for a motion and a second
  • 02:57:46
    so we can proceed with the vote. And
  • 02:57:48
    you can just pop your name in the
  • 02:57:50
    chat. Perfect. So we got a motion from
  • 02:58:03
    we got a motion from Cyrus, a second
  • 02:58:06
    from Chase. Brett, did you have a comment,
  • 02:58:08
    or were you trying to pop into second?
  • 02:58:15
    Okay. Alright. Thank you. Just confirming. Alright. So,
  • 02:58:19
    Erin, I think we got what we needed.
  • 02:58:23
    Thank you, Katie. So here before us, we
  • 02:58:31
    have the, combined ballot, and we just reviewed
  • 02:58:35
    the ballot details. We're gonna start with the
  • 02:58:38
    consumers, Cyrus. Yes. Mike? Yes. Nava? Thank you.
  • 02:58:56
    Moving on to cooperatives. Chris? Yes. Sandeep? Yes.
  • 02:59:05
    Paul? Yes. K. I don't believe Tony is
  • 02:59:11
    with us, but I'm gonna give him a
  • 02:59:13
    beat to chime in if he happen to
  • 02:59:15
    join us. K. Independent generator, Chase? Yes. Alex?
  • 02:59:39
    I heard a faint yes. Oh, thank you.
  • 02:59:45
    Katie? Yes. Thank you. Brett? Yes. Thank you.
  • 02:59:55
    Independent power of marketers, Shane? Yes, ma'am. Thank
  • 02:59:59
    you. Adam? Yes. Justin? Justin, if you're speaking,
  • 03:00:21
    we can't hear you. You can also enter
  • 03:00:23
    your vote into the chat. Thank you, sir.
  • 03:00:29
    Gotcha. And, Alex, I did see your your
  • 03:00:34
    note. We have you down as yes. Thank
  • 03:00:37
    you. I don't believe Dinesh is with us.
  • 03:00:43
    So moving on to the independent reps, Kevin?
  • 03:00:47
    Yes. Thanks. Jennifer? Jennifer, we can't hear you.
  • 03:01:03
    You can also enter your vote into the
  • 03:01:05
    chat. K. We'll come back to Jennifer. Chris?
  • 03:01:19
    Yes. Meng? Yes. K. Investor owned utilities. Martha
  • 03:01:32
    for ether? I vote yes. Thanks, Aaron. Thank
  • 03:01:36
    you. Chris? Yes. David? Yes. Thank you. Matthew?
  • 03:01:47
    Yes. Municipal, Kenneth? Yes. Chris? Chris, if you're
  • 03:02:13
    speaking, we can't hear you. I got you
  • 03:02:26
    on the chat. That's a yes for Chris.
  • 03:02:28
    Thank you. Imani? Yes. Matt? Yes. Thank you.
  • 03:02:40
    K. Going back to the independent reps, Jennifer?
  • 03:02:49
    Jennifer Smith. K. The motion carries with all
  • 03:03:01
    in favor. Oh, well, we already tallied it.
  • 03:03:08
    So sorry, Jennifer. We didn't we weren't able
  • 03:03:13
    to capture you. Okay, Erin. Thank you so
  • 03:03:23
    much. Okay. So going back to the agenda,
  • 03:03:37
    we have three working groups left. I didn't
  • 03:03:41
    see anything filed from SSWG or OTWG. Is
  • 03:03:47
    there anything that needs to be highlighted today
  • 03:03:49
    from either of these three groups? I'll let
  • 03:03:52
    you pop in the chat if yes. If
  • 03:03:55
    if not, we'll let PDC's, presentation stand on
  • 03:03:58
    its own. I'll give you three a second.
  • 03:04:13
    Okay. Thank you, Chad, for confirming. Okay. Thank
  • 03:04:19
    you on that on OTWG. Okay. Thanks, SSWG.
  • 03:04:23
    Thank you all for confirming. Chad just needs
  • 03:04:26
    a vice chair. I'll remind you guys of
  • 03:04:27
    that again. And then that will take us
  • 03:04:30
    into other business for the open action items.
  • 03:04:35
    Susie, do you wanna pull this up and
  • 03:04:39
    and scroll down to those TAC ones towards
  • Item 20 - Other Business - Katie Rich
    03:04:42
    the bottom. Alright. There we are. So this
  • Item 20.1 - Review Open Action Items List
    03:04:55
    one dealing with, the September 6 event, we
  • 03:05:01
    presented this to TAC last month, and, there
  • 03:05:07
    were there was no opposition to us removing
  • 03:05:11
    this from our, action items list. So I
  • 03:05:16
    just wanted to confirm that with everyone. Okay.
  • 03:05:30
    I'm not seeing anybody pop in the queue.
  • 03:05:32
    So, Susie, can we strike it? K. And,
  • 03:05:44
    yeah, that's probably best. Okay. And then when
  • 03:05:47
    we move down to the remaining KTCs, the
  • 03:05:55
    what we took to TAC was we let
  • 03:05:58
    them know that the only thing remaining was
  • 03:06:02
    the Blackstart service. So the first one, KTC
  • 03:06:06
    15.5, so that's still at, the
  • 03:06:09
    black start working group, but everything else, is
  • 03:06:16
    considered, done and complete. So that's what we
  • 03:06:20
    relate to tax, so I believe we can
  • 03:06:22
    take those out. Okay, thank you for showing
  • 03:06:31
    that. So then, we'll we'll just say here
  • 03:06:35
    to reiterate a point that Caitlin made earlier
  • 03:06:38
    is as we start to maybe, revise our
  • 03:06:44
    goals and maybe whittle those down a bit,
  • 03:06:48
    The open action items is definitely a place
  • 03:06:50
    that we can, add, something that we may
  • 03:06:54
    need to track throughout the year and track
  • 03:06:56
    our progress on. So, we'll let Erin save
  • Item 21 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
    03:07:00
    those. That was my last note. Anything else
  • 03:07:04
    for the good of the group? If not,
  • 03:07:07
    we will be set to adjourn once she
  • 03:07:09
    gets those saved. Okay. Not seeing anything. Thanks
  • 03:07:25
    all for a very productive meeting today. We
  • 03:07:28
    will see you in person, next month for
  • 03:07:32
    our March meeting on March 6. Alright. Thank
  • 03:07:36
    you, guys. Thank you.
2025-ros-combined-ballot-20250206
Feb 05, 2025 - xls - 140 KB
02-ros-agenda-20250206
Jan 29, 2025 - docx - 56.3 KB
03-draft-minutes-ros-20250109v2
Feb 03, 2025 - doc - 272 KB
05-2025-ros-wg-leadership-nominated
Feb 02, 2025 - docx - 20.4 KB
06-2024-ros-goals-tac-approved-03272024
Jan 29, 2025 - doc - 30.5 KB
December-2024-ercot-operations-report-public
Jan 23, 2025 - docx - 429.8 KB
Systemplanningros_dec2024
Jan 23, 2025 - docx - 410.1 KB
12-owg_ros_20250206
Feb 03, 2025 - pptx - 49.2 KB
13-ndswg_report_to_ros_020625_rg
Feb 02, 2025 - pptx - 39.6 KB
14-planning-working-group-report_02062025
Jan 29, 2025 - pptx - 51.5 KB
15-ibrwg-report-to-ros-020625
Feb 02, 2025 - docx - 22.8 KB
15-2025_feb_ros_nogrr272_pgrr121_ercot
Feb 02, 2025 - pdf - 280 KB
17-pdcwg-report-to-ros_020625
Feb 03, 2025 - pptx - 4 MB
18-sswg-report-to-ros-2-6-2025
Feb 05, 2025 - pptx - 48.7 KB
Meeting-materials-ros-20250206
Feb 05, 2025 - zip - 8.4 MB
Revision-request-ros-20240206
Feb 04, 2025 - zip - 4.7 MB
Validation for ROS Standing Representatives - Suzy Clifton
Starts at 00:00:03
1 - Antitrust Admonition - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:01:03
2 - Agenda Review - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:01:38
3 - Approval of ROS Meeting Minutes - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:03:23
3.1 - January 9, 2025 - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:03:42
4 - Technical Advisory Committee - TAC - Update Katie Rich
Starts at 00:04:54
5 - 2025 ROS Working Group Leadership - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:06:18
6 - 2025 ROS Goals - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:09:29
7 - ERCOT Reports
Starts at 00:17:53
7.1 - Operations Report - Alex Lee
Starts at 00:17:58
7.2 - System Planning Report - Ping Yan
Starts at 00:22:17
8 - New Protocol Revision Subcommittee - PRS - Referrals - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:23:29
8.1 - NPRR1265, Unregistered Distributed Generator
Starts at 00:23:44
9 - Revision Requests Tabled at PRS and Referred to ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:28:15
9.1 - NPRR1229, Real-Time Constraint Management Plan Energy Payment
Starts at 00:28:19
10 - Revision Requests Tabled at ROS - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:45:30
11 - NPRR1264, Creation of a New Energy Attribute Certificate Program - Possible Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 00:45:44
12 - Operations Working Group - OWG - OWG Leadership
Starts at 00:47:59
12.1 - NPRR1070, Planning Criteria for GTC Exit Solutions - OWG, PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 00:48:04
12.2 - NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 00:48:19
12.3 - NOGRR265, Related to NPRR1238, Voluntary Registration of Loads with Curtailable Load Capabilities - OWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 00:48:57
13 - Network Data Support Working Group - NDSWG - NDSWG Leadership
Starts at 00:51:17
13.1 - NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - NDSWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 00:51:57
Break
Starts at 01:00:21
14 - Planning Working Group - PLWG - PLWG Leadership
Starts at 01:02:47
14.1 - PGRR115, Related to NPRR1234, Interconnection Requirements for Large Loads and Modeling Standards for Loads 25 MW or Greater - PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:02:50
14.2 - PGRR119, Stability Constraint Modeling Assumptions in the Regional Transmission Plan - PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:03:45
14.3 - PGRR120, SSO Prevention for Generator Interconnection - PLWG - DWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:04:13
14.4 - PGRR122, Reliability Performance Criteria for Loss of Load - DWG - PLWG - Possible Vote
Starts at 01:05:06
14.1 - PGRR115, Additional Discussion
Starts at 01:07:38
14.2 - PGRR119, Additional Discussion
Starts at 01:54:09
15 - Inverter Based Resources Working Group - IBRWG - IBRWG Leadership
Starts at 02:06:27
15.1 - NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs - DWG - IBRWG - Possible Vote - Fred Huang
Starts at 02:06:32
15.2 - PGRR121, Related to NOGRR272, Advanced Grid Support Requirements for Inverter-Based ESRs - DWG - IBRWG - Possible Vote - Fred Huang
Starts at 02:21:11
16 - Combo Ballot - Vote - Katie Rich
Starts at 02:55:46
20 - Other Business - Katie Rich
Starts at 03:04:42
20.1 - Review Open Action Items List
Starts at 03:04:55
21 - Adjourn - Katie Rich
Starts at 03:07:00